Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Clare College, Cambridge (Blythe's Benefaction), Bill [Lords.]

Bill to be read a Second time.

Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

STANDING ORDER 33.—(Deposit of Private Bills at Treasury and other Public Departments.)

On or before the 21st day of December, a printed copy shall be deposited—
(4) Of every Bill relating to gas, patent?, or for incorporating or giving powers to any company, at the Office of the Board of Trade, and of every Bill relating to railways, light railways, tramways, canals, waterways, inland navigations, roads, bridges, ferries, or the vehicles and traffic thereon, harbours, docks, and piers, and of every Bill relating to the generation or supply of electricity, at the Office of the Ministry of Transport;

Amendments made:

In paragraph (4), after the word "gas," insert the words "water power."

After the word "patents," insert the words "designs, trade marks, or copyrights."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the final retiring pension of £l,000 per annum due to members of the Indian Civil Service on the completion of their full term of years may be reduced to or forfeited by those members who, not retiring at present, have not accepted the reduced retiring pension now offered to them but claim the full pension at the approaching end of their full term of service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No, Sir. A member of the Indian Civil Service who serves his full time will receive on retirement an annuity of £1,000. There is nothing in the Premature Retirement Scheme which affects the annuity payable under normal conditions to an officer who retires after completing the full qualifying period of service.

TRANS-INDUS NORTH-WEST PROVINCE.

Sir C. OMAN: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decisions have been made on the suggested project for the abolition of the full provincial status of the Trans-Indus North-West Province?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (OFFICERS' PAY).

Captain HOTCHKIN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the pay of officers domiciled in Germany as part of the Army of Occupation is refunded to the Imperial Government by the German Government; whether, although their pay ultimately comes from German and not from Imperial funds, they are charged British Income Tax thereon, whilst officers seconded to the Foreign Office for duty with the various commissions in Germany receive their pay tax-free because it comes from German and not from Imperial funds; and whether it is intended that the amount deducted
as Income Tax from the pay of officers of the Army of Occupation in Germany be refunded to them as and when pay is refunded to the Imperial Government by the German Government?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The officers in question draw their Army pay from British funds, and their consequent liability for Income Tax under Schedule E is not affected by any general financial arrangement with the German Government under which the cost of the Army of Occupation is recoverable from the German Government. There is, therefore, no intention of refunding the tax.

OFFICERS (RETIREMENT GRATUITIES).

Major BROWN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst officers of the Army because the gratuities to compulsorily retired officers are regarded as a premium on inefficiency; and whether the same gratuities can be offered in consequence to voluntary retirements until the necessary numbers are completed?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which my right hon. Friend gave to questions on this subject on the 23rd May last.

COMMANDS (DURATION).

Major BROWN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the Army has not followed the example of the Navy, and cut down the period of commands to such time as would give a chance of employment to those now on half-pay; and whether he is aware that the present practice is particularly hard as regards officers who have been specially promoted for service in the late War?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: This matter was carefully examined by the Army-Council in 1919, and it was not considered desirable to make the alteration suggested.

Major BROWN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is extremely hard on officers who were specially promoted for services in the War?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am afraid that there is bound to be some hardship in these matters, but the matter has been considered carefully by the Army Council.

SIGNAL SERVICE TRAINING CENTRE, MARESFIELD,

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to state whether or no the Signal Service training centre will remain permanently at Maresfield: and, if so, whether he will have inquiries made as to the need to improve the accommodation there forthwith?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but I am inquiring meanwhile whether anything can be done to mitigate the discomfort at the station.

FIFTH ARMY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that in March, 1918, the French Chief of Staff pressed for, but was at the time unable to get, British assent to the formation of an army of manoeuvre that could reinforce any part of the Allied line, as well as to the fact that, as is now known, the British Chief of Staff predicted that the British Fifth Army would have to hear the brunt of the German attack and was in danger of being overrun, he will have further in quiry made into the action of the Commander of the Fifth Army, which, as the result of the German break-through, has been called in question?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir; it is not considered that an inquiry is necessary.

REDUCTIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War what reductions in the Army already arranged for have not yet been carried out; whether, in view of the serious position of affairs in Ireland, and the heavy commitments of the country in other parts of the world, any further cutting down contemplated will be suspended in the meantime; and if he will state what were the respective numbers of officers and men in the infantry, cavalry and artillery before the War, and what is the actual strength now of those forces?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: As the answers to the first and third part of the question are of a statistical character, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission circulate the par-titulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Following are the particulars referred to:
As regards the first part of the question, out of the 10 third and fourth battalions recommended for disbandment, all but three have been disbanded. The three not yet disbanded are all serving

Army.
1st July, 1914 (approx.).
1st July, 1922 (approx.).


Officers.
Other Banks.
Total.
Officers,
Other Ranks.
Total.


Infantry (including Guards).
4,770
135,800
140,570
4,550
113,000
117,550


Cavalry
800
19,000
19,800
600
13,000
13,600


Artillery
1,900
44,700
46,600
2,100
35,500
37,600

FRONGOCH GAMP, BALA.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the date upon which the Government entered into occupation of the land, utilised as a camp, at Frongoch, Bala; whether the tenancy has been determined and, if so, upon what date; and what were the annual sums paid, respectively, by way of rent and rates?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. There were two tenancies, starting from May and October, 1915. Both have been determined as from 31st October last. The aggregate rent, inclusive of rates, was £47 per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

MERIONETH AND MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATION.

Mr. H. JONES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Merioneth local pensions committee protesting against the office of secretary to the Merioneth and Montgomery Territorial Army Association being held by a gentleman of ample

abroad, and their disbandment cannot be carried out until they arrive home from abroad next trooping season. Out of the 12 Irish battalions due for disbandment, 10 have already been disbanded. The reductions in the number of other ranks contemplated have nearly all been completed, but there are still a number of surplus officers to be got rid of; these are now being rapidly reduced. With the above exceptions, all the reductions in the Army arranged for have been completed.

As regards the third part of the question, the following table gives the numbers required:

means; and whether he will call upon the Association to appoint a disabled officer, in need of employment, in place of the present holder of the office?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part, I am not in a position to intervene.

AIR DEFENCE BRIGADES.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether an anti-aircraft brigade for the defence of London is to be formed in the Territorial Army; if so, what is to be the strength of the force and what will it cost; whether the War Office have any figures to show how large an anti-aircraft force would actually be required to defend London from attack by an air force as large as that of France; and whether the decision can be reconsidered, with a view to devoting the money to aircraft in lieu of ground defence?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the answer to this question is somewhat lengthy, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Viscount CURZON: Could I not have an answer to the last part of my question, as to whether the decision can be reconsidered with a view to devoting the money to aircraft, in lieu of ground defence?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think my Noble Friend had better see the entire answer. If the House like, I can read it, but it is very long.
Following is the answer:
As a beginning to the future organisation for the air defence of Great Britain, two air defence brigades, Territorial Army, for the defence of London are included in the current year's Estimates, and steps are now being taken to form them. This has been done in consultation with the Air Ministry.
The provisional peace establishment for the ground troops of an air defence brigade, Territorial Army, is approximately 1,633 all ranks, including the signal section. These numbers do not include the squadron or squadrons, Royal Air Force, co-operating with the ground troops. The total strength of two brigades as above is, therefore, approximately 3,266 all ranks. The above establishment has been agreed to by the Air Ministry, who were consulted.
The total annual cost of an air defence brigade, Territorial Army, as given above —exclusive of the squadron Royal Air Force—is about £55,000, and for two brigades it will therefore be £110,000.
The decision to raise the ground troops of two air defence brigades for the defence of Great Britain has been reached after careful study of present and future strategical conditions. It is not in the public interest to disclose the considerations which have animated the War Office in deciding to raise these ground troops. The due apportionment of the available money for defence against air attack between aircraft and ground defence troops has been, and still is, the subject of careful consideration.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Viscount WOLMER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the accounts of the Navy and
Army Canteen Board and of the Navy and Army and Air Force Institutes will be published?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I hope that information on this matter will be available in the course of this or next week.

Viscount WOLMER: Will this information contain the balance-sheets for the three years which have been asked for?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am not quite sure in what form the information will be given to the House. The documents are very lengthy, but I hope it will be possible to present it in a compact form.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DISTRESS COMMITTEE.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has arranged that soldiers disbanded from Irish regiments, who are prevented from returning to their homes in Ireland consequent on the lawless state prevailing there, should receive pecuniary assistance from the fund administered by the hon. Member for Chelsea?

Mr. REID: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to add to the personnel of the Irish Refugee Committee, to extend the scope and powers of that Committee, and to include disbanded Irish soldiers who are prevented by the present conditions in Ireland from returning to their homes; and will he consider the desirability of referring to this Committee the cases of those who have been compelled to leave Ireland because of the loss of all their property and who may have claimed and been awarded compensation, but who are penniless and in distress?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Any person ordinarily resident in Ireland who is unable to return to his home owing to disturbed conditions, and who is consequently in urgent need of financial relief in this country, can be dealt with by the Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give a distinct
promise in the House some three weeks ago that the ease of the disbanded soldier would be specially considered?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If ray hon. and gallant Friend will consider the answer I have now given, he will see that I am complying with the undertaking which I then gave.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: If the depots of the regiments from which these men are being disbanded are in Ireland must they go to the depot to be disbanded? Could they not be disbanded here, if their people happen to be in England?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise out of the question, but I will consider it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Does the fight hon. Gentleman's answer mean that my Committee can deal with any Irishman—whether he be in an Irish regiment or whatever his profession may be—who cannot return to Ireland? If that be so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the machinery of my Committee is totally incompetent to deal with extended work of that kind?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot believe that my hon. and gallant Friend is incompetent to deal with these questions.

Sir S. HOARE: It is a question of the machinery.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I had hoped to be able to see my hon. and gallant Friend personally before I answered this question, and I have been endeavouring to do so. If, however, he will consider the answer, I think he will see that it is limited to persons ordinarily resident in Ireland who are unable, etc.

Sir S. HOARE: Does that mean that the Committee can deal with men of other regiments, whether Irish regiments or not?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the actual answer I have given. It has been very carefully considered with the Treasury and the other authorities who have to be consulted and I cannot enlarge upon the actual words of the answer.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it proposed in any way to broaden the basis of the Committee and give them extended powers, as was suggested by the Colonial Secretary?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe the Colonial Secretary has already dealt with that matter in an answer to another question.

Sir S. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is quite impossible for a Member of this House to remain chairman of a Committee of this kind when decisions of this kind are taken without any consultation with him?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): Might I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he will come and discuss the matter with me after Questions to-day? We can certainly arrive at a little nearer agreement than is the case at present, and also save the time of the House.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Seeing that the Royal Naval College at Osborne is now vacated, might it not be used, as a temporary housing measure, for some of these people who are being evacuated or disbanded from Ireland?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That really does not arise out of the question, but it is an interesting suggestion in itself, and can be, of course, considered.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As the right hon. Gentleman said that the Colonial Secretary had dealt with the question of extended powers, can we clear up this matter and know whether any wider reference is being given to this Committee?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe I am to be asked a question on that later on. I am in process of arriving at a decision in regard to the necessary equipment of this Committee with the extended machinery which will certainly be required, and that extended machinery will, no doubt, include an addition to the personnel of the Committee.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Committee be competent to deal with Catholics as well as Protestants?

Mr. CHURCHILL: What a question!

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it competent, or will it be made competent?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put that question down.

MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to carry out the agreement arrived at with the Irish Free State Government that, in cases of damage to property during recent disturbances, the party responsible for causing the damage was to be the party to bear the burden; whether Lord Shaw's Commission deals with the question of responsibility for causing damage; and, if not, how this question is determined?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In pursuance of the Agreement referred to by the hon. Member, it has been arranged between His Majesty s Government and the Provisional Government that the latter shall assume responsibility for seeing that all awards of the Commission are duly satisfied, and that the British Government shall reimburse the Irish Government for such proportion of the total amount as, in the opinion of the Commission, represents damage caused by the Forces of the Crown, or persons acting in the interest or supposed interest of the British Government.

Captain BENN: When and how will the Commission arrive at a decision? Will it be on each individual case or will that make an aggregate decision at the end?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In the first instance the Commission will assess the amount of damage, and after that process is over they will communicate on whom the responsibility rests in their opinion, and there may be some doubtful cases which will have to be discussed between the two Governments. As a result a certain bill will be due from us, and we shall pay that bill to the Free State Government, assuming the Free State Government has already disbursed the sums due for other claims.

Captain BENN: Shall we know case by case what this damage is assessed at or will it simply be an aggregate amount?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should certainly think case by case, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to draw any moral offensive to his country that he may feel inclined to.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only moral I wish to draw is the excessive cost of the reprisals policy?

Sir S. HOARE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Irish courts of law have decided that no compensation can be given in the case of a man whose property has been confiscated without material damage having been done to it: and what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this omission in the law?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for York on the 3rd instant, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley on the 6th instant.

Sir S. HOARE: In view of the fact that there is no legal means of obtaining compensation in these eases, will the right hon. Gentleman take these cases up at once with the Provisional Government and have the matter out straight, as it is very urgent?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will take it up as soon as I see a good opportunity, but when a Government is really fighting for its life against wide-spread rebellion and revolution, in its capital as well as other parts of the country, I think one must show a certain amount if discretion and good sense in not pressing an enormous amount of administrative business upon them.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he case of these unfortunate men is very urgent?

Sir S. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as the result of these offences taking place, these cases are increasing enormously in number every day?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not been given any figures showing that there has been any very sudden increase in the number of refugees. No doubt there has been a good deal of damage done in the recent fighting.

Sir S. HOARE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the approximate number of cases and the amount of the claims to be dealt with by Lord Shaw's Commission; how many
claims have so far been dealt with; and what sums of money have been paid to the claimants?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to answer the first part of the question, but the number of cases to be heard is certainly very numerous. In reply to the second part of the question, I understand that 10 cases have been heard by the Commission; but on this point I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for York on the 6th instant. No payments in the cases heard by the Commission have yet been made, but I am assured that there will be no delay in making payments as soon as the consideration of certain general questions has been completed.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 10 cases have been heard out of 10,000 cases? Does he think that is a satisfactory progress in regard to these cases, all of which are very urgent?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the cases selected were representative, key cases, as it were, the rulings in regard to which would apply, with very small modifications, to large categories of cases.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the Commission has adjourned for several months owing to the absence of Lord Shaw?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is true that Lord Shaw has gone to the United States for a short time to fulfil an engagement which he had undertaken before he accepted the work of the Commission, but as the main principles have been laid down the work of investigation in the interval ought to provide a large number of cases for the decision of the tribunal when it reassembles.

Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are these investigators?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will, when I know.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when any money will be paid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think payment ought to begin very soon by the Provisional Government to parties whose cases
have been dealt with by the Commission, but the general state of civil war which exists in Ireland necessarily restricts smooth working of these processes.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how these people are to live in the meantime?

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing someone in the meantime to take the place of Lord Shaw?

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: In all cases where decisions of the courts have been made before the sittings of Lord Shaw's Commission, would it not be possible to give some compassionate allowance, as many of these people are on the rocks?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The next question will afford me a means of dealing to some extent with the Supplementary Question of the, hon. Member.

Sir J. BUTCHER: When will Lord Shaw resume the hearing of these cases?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a decision has been arrived at as to the payment of 12½ per cent., in accord ance with the Pensions Order, 1920, on the pay of men whose service in the Royal Irish Constabulary was extended in the interests of the public service beyond the age limit of retirement; and whether he will state to whom application should be made for such payment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Baronet refers, I think, to extensions under Section 8 of the Pensions Order of 1022. No members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who had either reached the age limit or were entitled to retire owing to length of service were retained in the force in the interests of the public service after the date on which that Order became operative.

REPUBLICAN SUPREME COURT.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that proceedings brought in the High Court of Justice in
Southern Ireland are being restrained in obedience to injunctions issued by the Republican Supreme Court; and will he state under what authority such powers are exercised by the Supreme Republican Court?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Bath on the 14th ultimo.

Mr. GRITTEN: Is the judiciary in the South of Ireland in a state of complete, or partial paralysis?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should say nearer complete than partial.

MURDER OF SIR HENRY WILSON.

Sir F. HALL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a reply has been received from the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State to the communication addressed to it by the Imperial Government, arising out of the murder of Sir Henry Wilson; and, if so, will he state what are the terms thereof?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member alludes to the communication to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred during the Debate on the Irish Office Vote on the 26th June last. That communication did not arise out of the murder of Sir Henry Wilson, but out of the state of affairs then prevailing in Ireland; and in view of the great changes which have taken place in the situation since that date, no reply, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, is now necessary.

OUTRAGE, TIPPERARY.

Sir F. HALL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a number of Sinn Feiners recently entered the house of a Loyalist in Tipperary and, having locked up the owner of the premises and an aged relative in a room, proceeded one by one to outrage the wife of the owner; whether any arrests have yet been made in connection with the occurrence; and if he will take the necessary steps for this case to be included among the other unpunished crimes and outrages which the Free State Government have undertaken
to look into if and when they are able, provided the necessary evidence is still available?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been reported to me that a number of men (not necessarily Sinn Feiners) entered the house referred to and committed a criminal outrage on the wife of the owner. The local officers of the Provisional Government at once inquired into the case. The leader of the gang who committed this shocking crime is believed to be a man who absconded from the neighbourhood immediately after the event, and every effort is being made by the Provisional Government and by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood to trace him and bring him and his associates to justice. So far as can be ascertained there is no political clement in this crime, which is one, I am glad to say, of rare occurrence in Ireland. In reply to the last part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member will understand from what I have already said that there is no need to bring the, matter further to the attention of the Provisional Government, who are no less, anxious than His Majesty's Government could be to deal energetically and ruthlessly with crime of this kind.

REFUGEES.

Sir S. HOARE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are a large number of refugees from Ireland who, although they have judgments in their favour amounting to thousands of pounds, have had no payment made to them and, as a result, are in a state of grave financial embarrassment: and whether he will set up a Royal Commission, upon which the Dublin and Ulster Governments should be asked to appoint representatives, with the power to make advances or payments on account to these people!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that a number of those who have been compelled to seek refuge from Ireland in this country have obtained decrees in respect of malicious injury to preperty in Ireland. As the House is aware by arrangement between the two Governments concerned a Commission under the Chairmanship of Lord Shaw has been set up to deal with such decrees, and in these circumstances His Majesty's Government could not see
their way to set up a further Commission for the purpose indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am, however, assured by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in individual cases of exceptional hardship advances can be made from Imperial funds to be repaid out of any sums which may be awarded to the holder of the decree by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission.

Sir S. HOARE: Does that mean that any man with a decree can go to the Irish Office and obtain a payment on account?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. My promise on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so sweeping as that, but a man who has got a decree from this Commission can apply to the Irish Office in the first instance, and they can consult the: Treasury as to whether he comes within the scope of the undertaking which I have given on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir S. HOARE: On what Vote will this come, as grave doubt has been expressed as to whether any money has been voted for this purpose?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say at the moment whether it will be necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate, but the policy in regard to compensation has been announced clearly to the House. I hope in the first instance that payment will be made by the Government of the Irish Free State, and we should reimburse them, and the process of reimbursement will be part of the general financial settlement to be made between the two countries; but it may not turn out like that, in which case we shall certainly have to consider whether any money due should not be paid in the first instance by us to persons who have suffered for their loyalty to this country.

Sir J. REMNANT: How are they to live in the meantime?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If they have got a decree they should apply to the Irish Office, who will submit their claim to the Treasury which, in eases of exceptional hardship, will make certain advances.

TAXATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person domiciled in the Irish Free State and held
to be a citizen of the Irish Free State is in the same position with regard to taxes partly levied in Great Britain and partly in the Irish Free State as is a citizen of the Dominion of Canada: and, if so, what is his position with regard to the payment of Super-tax, and to which taxing authority will he be required to make his return for assessment and subsequent payment?

Sir J. BAIRD: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to him of the 6th April last. I am sending him a copy of that reply. I may add that discussions are taking place between the Imperial and Provisional Governments on the questions of double taxation which may arise when the Constitution of the Irish Free State is established.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does that mean that at the moment the British citizen, the Englishman, and the citizen of the Free State are on exactly identical terms for the purposes of taxation?

Sir J. BAIRD: I understand that that is so in regard to taxation.

IRAQ (BRITISH TREATY).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of a Treaty to regulate the relations between the British and Arab Governments have now been agreed between the Government of Iraq and the British High Commissioner in Baghdad: whether the terms of this Treaty will now be laid as a Parliamentary Paper and will be communicated officially to the League of Nations; whether there is a general demand throughout Iraq that this Treaty shall be submitted forthwith to the General Assembly of Iraq for ratification; whether any further representations have been received from King Feisal regarding the pressure being put on him to secure the assent of the British Government to some modification of the international political status of Iraq involved by the terms of the draft Mandate for Iraq: and whether it is proposed to ask the Council of the League of Nations at its next session to consider the difficulties which have arisen in Iraq with regard to the use of the word mandate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The terms of the proposed Treaty with the Iraq Government have not yet been finally agreed, but the negotiations are on the verge of completion, and I hope to be able to make a full statement on the, subject in a very short time. The text of the Treaty will be laid before Parliament as soon as it has been signed, and it will be communicated in due course to the Council of the League of Nations. Provision is made in the Treaty for its reference to the Constituent Assembly of Iraq prior to its ratification. With reference to the fourth part of the question, there has been a free interchange of views with King Feisal in the course of the negotiations, the result of which will be embodied in the Treaty. It would be undesirable and contrary to practice to give details of these discussions. The reply to the last part is in the negative.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative, will the matter be communicated to the principal Allied Powers, or is no international sanction necessary for the purpose of the Treaty 2 Have we power under the San Remo agreement to proceed without consulting our Allies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the course we have adopted is entirely within the limits of our powers. Of course, the Treaty will be brought before the League of Nations, and no doubt will be a subject of discussion there, but I do not anticipate that the view will be unfavourable. It will enable us to proceed to give effect at an earlier date to all the most beneficial provisions of the Mandate.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this Arab demand for the abrogation of our mandate provides an opportunity for complete withdrawal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the Arab dislike of the word mandate arises out of pure ignorance of what is implied in a mandate. They imagine it is some method of controlling or enthralling them, whereas the whole object of the mandate is to keep the mandatory Powers in order and make them conform to their obligations.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does not the Arab Government demand complete transfer of
all authority in Government, while our country is to retain responsibility for providing men for the maintenance of the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that if we were to threaten to withdraw from the country it would produce chaos and panic, and certainly very formidable disorders would result.

Sir J. BUTCHER: As the Treaty of Sevres has not yet been ratified has the League of Nations actually sanctioned the mandate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The actual mandates have not yet been passed by the League of Nations, but meanwhile we have been confronted with the need of carrying on from day to day and year to year, and we are carrying on with a considerable measure of success.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to lay the terms of the Treaty on the Table?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I had hoped to be able by now, but I should think in a week or 10 days. There is hardly anything outstanding now except minor points, in which we are endeavouring to meet their views as much as possible, subject to our obligations to the League of Nations.

GIBRALTAR (TAXATION).

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the reduction effected in the Estimates of the Government of Gibraltar; how far these reductions will relieve the load of taxation; and whether it is proposed to abolish the export tax upon coal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Estimates of Gibraltar for the current year show a reduction of nearly £100,000 in expenditure as compared with the previous year. Further economies are contemplated, and I have found it possible to approve the abolition of the export tax on coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

PLEDGES TO ARABS.

Mr. LESTRANGE MALONE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether, in view of the continual misinterpretations of our pledges to the Arabs, he will publish the letter of 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon to the Sheriff of Mecca in full or the whole correspondence of which that letter formed one item?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; it would not be in the public interest to publish one or all of the documents comprising the long and inconclusive correspondence that took place with the Sheriff of Mecca in 1915–16. I am dealing with the question of the alleged pledges to the Arabs in my reply to the hon. Member for North Stafford.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what pledges, if any, were made to the Palestine Arabs in the year 1915; whether the Sykes-Picot agreement, negotiated between the Governments of France and Great Britain before the Arabs entered the War as Allies, provided that in the event of Allied victory Palestine west of the Jordan was to be a separate international State with the exception of Haifa, which was to be British territory; and whether the Balfour declaration of November, 1917, was preceded by any pledges or promises regarding the future of Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No pledges were made to the Palestine Arabs in 1915. An undertaking was given to the Sheriff of Mecca that His Majesty's Government would recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within certain territorial limits, which specifically excluded the districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and the portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Horns, Hama and Aleppo. It was also stipulated that the undertaking applied only to those portions of the territories concerned in which Great Britain was free to act without detriment to the interests of her Allies. His Majesty's Government have always regarded and continue to regard Palestine as excluded by these provisos from the scope of their undertaking. This is clear from the fact, to which the hon. Member refers, that in the following year they concluded an agreement with the French and Russian Governments under which Palestine was to receive special treatment.
So far as I am aware, the first suggestion that Palestine was included in the area within which His Majesty's Government promised to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs was made by the Emir Feisal, now King of Iraq, at a conversation held in the Foreign Office on the 20th January, 1921, more than five years after the conclusion of the correspondence on which the claim was based. On that occasion the point of view of His Majesty's Government was explained to the Emir, who expressed himself as prepared to accept the statement that it had been the intention of His Majesty's Government to exclude Palestine.
When I assumed responsibility for Middle Eastern affairs, I went carefully into the correspondence referred to, and my reading of it is the same as that of the Foreign Office, as was recently stated in the declaration of British policy in Palestine which has been published and laid before the House. I am quite satisfied that it was as fully the intention of His Majesty's Government to exclude Palestine from the area of Arab independence as it was to exclude the more northern coastal tracts of Syria.

Lord R. CECIL: In view of the many statements that have been made on all sides about this correspondence, will the right hon. Gentleman consider again the desirability of publishing the correspondence, and putting an end, once and for all, to embarrassment and doubt?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, confident as he is of the view of His Majesty's Government, he is at all certain that the other party to the negotiations and correspondence really thought the same thing, and whether it has not been a bond fide statement on the part of King Hussein and his advisers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is so. At any rate, Sir Henry McMahon was perfectly clear in his indication of what was intended at the time. I am perfectly ready to place his opinion on public record.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now say that this correspondence was inconclusive, and that King Hussein came in as one of the Allies before the correspondence was
completed, or any real definite undertaking was actually signed as between the Treaty-making parties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is so.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the correspondence being published, other than its being against the public interest?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member had been in his place when an earlier Question was answered, he would have heard that we did not think that the publication of the correspondence was desirable.

CONCESSIONS.

Mr. MALONE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the misapprehensions concerning the Rutenberg scheme, especially in regard to the provisions for irrigation and agriculture, he will publish a summary thereof?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Copies of the agreements concluded with Mr. Rutenberg were placed some time ago in the Library of the House, where they are open to inspection by hon. Members. I do not think that there would be any advantage in adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

WEST COAST COLONIES (TRADE SPIRITS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to revise the attitude of the West Coast Colonies towards trade spirit by allowing importation, but by charging on all imported liquor a heavy flat-rate duty which will discourage cheap spirits, check all drinking, and help to restore the revenues?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. and gallant Member will see, if he will refer to the Convention relating to the liquor traffic in Africa, which was signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye on 10th September, 1919, ratified by His Majesty in 1920, and laid before Parliament as Command 478, His Majesty's Government are bound by treaty in the matter. Under this Convention who are pledged to prohibit the importation of trade spirits.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the other signatories to the treaty are also carrying it out?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a question which I should certainly have to consider very carefully before I attempted to answer it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: is not that the question raised in Debate the other day to which an answer must be given?

RHODESIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken to discover the amount of the debt to the Chartered Company in respect of North and South Rhodesia, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Buxton's Committee; if so, when the case for North Rhodesia will come before the Privy Council; and, if not, whether it is proposed to settle with the company without knowing what the legal debt may be?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards Southern Rhodesia, further consideration of the recommendations of Lord Buxton's Committee with regard to the determination of the deductions to be made from the Cave award has been deferred pending the taking of the proposed referendum as to the future of the territory. As regards Northern Rhodesia, the arrangements for the proposed reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the British South Africa Company's claims, including the claim to reimbursement of the administrative deficits, are still under examination.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not unfair to take a referendum in Southern Rhodesia when the people of the colony who are voting are unaware what liability independence will put upon their shoulders?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was inclined to think further delay might have been advantageous, but it is the wish of the elected body there that a referendum should be held as rapidly as possible.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the delay-on the part of His Majesty's Government, who have delayed discovering exactly what the debt is?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure if a fault lies anywhere, it is with His Majesty's Government!

KENYA (TAXATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has accepted the suggestion of the Kenya Government to replace the Income Tax by increasing the tax on rice from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent., on pulse from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. and by a protective tariff of 50 per cent. on imported timber; whether the Report of the Special Committee on Reduction of Expenditure in Kenya will be published: and whether he will set up an Economy Committee for the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The increases in Customs duties made by the Government of Kenya to provide the revenue expected to be obtained from Income Tax are in operation. The Governor's comments on the increases will be made by despatch. The increase on rice is as stated; on grains other than rice and wheat the increase is from 20 to 30 per cent.
I shall consider the question of publishing the Report of the Committee which the Governor has appointed to consider redaction of expenditure and other matters when I have received it. The Committees recommendations for reducing staff are communicated to the Colonial Government from time to time, and there is no question of awaiting a Report before giving effect to them.
A Committee on Economics sat last year in Sierra Leone, and many of their suggestions have been carried out. In the Gold Coast the Governor is already carrying out a policy of rigorous retrenchment. The financial position of that Colony is not so serious as to suggest that his efforts require to be supplemented.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that the protective tariff of 50 per cent. on imported timber is now in effect, and that his Majesty's Government have sanctioned it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of all these duties is solely to procure revenue.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (ARMS).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the shooting of Sergeant Beesley of the Metropolitan Police, in Plenheim Road, Holloway, on Wednesday, the 5th instant, while arresting an alleged cycle thief; and if he has yet decided to arm the police with revolvers so as to enable them to defend themselves against armed criminals?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): As I have stated on previous occasions, any constable engaged on dangerous duty who is competent to handle a pistol is supplied with one if he desires, and I am strongly advised against requiring the police generally to carry arms at other times. It is not desirable that they should use such weapons except to resist an armed attack, and until he was arrested there was no reason to suppose that Sergeant Beesley's assailant was armed.

Sir J. REMNANT: In the case of a police constable who wishes to be armed in view of possible attacks by criminals, will he be supplied with practice ammunition if he applies for it, as I am told that he has to pay out of his own pocket for the ammunition with which he must practice in order to become expert?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that I cannot answer without notice, but if my hon. Friend is correct, I will look into the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing orders to superintendents of police that when men are going on a dangerous job he will issue an order that they shall carry arms, and not leave it to them to ask for them?

Mr. SHORTT: It depends on the job. Men on special duty are selected for their skill with the pistol, and are armed.

Major HOWARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable to have the law strengthened so as to have more severe penalties for criminals who are caught with arms'?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

STREET ACCIDENTS (LEWISHAM).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations from the Deptford Borough Council with regard to the number of accidents to pedestrians crossing the carriageways at the junction of Lewisham High Road and New Cross Road, the council urging that the services of a second constable are needed if serious accidents are to be averted; and whether, if a second constable cannot be placed on duty there throughout the day, he will consider the desirability of advising the Commissioner of Police to arrange for a second officer to be there during the busiest hours of the day and on Saturdays?

Mr. SHORTT: I have received a communication from the Deptford Borough Council regarding the traffic at the junction of Lewisham High Road and New Cross Road, and have consulted the Commissioner of Police who informs me that a single officer is in his opinion ample for the proper control of the traffic. Moreover, the lay-out of the roads at this spot is such that an additional officer could not work with the one already on point duty there.

LEGITIMATION BY MARRIAGE.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state when he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with the legitimation of children by the subsequent marriage of their parents?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given on the 4th instant.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that he has already allowed the greater part of the Session to go by without making any apparent move, and that if later on it is said that time will not permit the introduction of this Measure and will not be considered as relieving him of responsibility?

Mr. SHORTT: I hope that my hon. Friend will not suppose that I have been doing nothing. This is a much more difficult matter than he supposes. I have
been giving it the most careful consideration and discussing it with the law officers and others.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman ask an hon. Member not to proceed with a Bill on the subject as the Government were going to introduce a Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: That is true, because the Bill brought forward seemed to us to be inadequate and it would have been very difficult to do anything with it.

Captain BOWYER: Before Whitsuntide did not the right hon. Gentleman promise to introduce it in a few days?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not sure that I gave that pledge, but certainly I did promise, and I will carry out the promise, to bring in a Bill as soon as I can.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will it be in this Session?

Mr. SHORTT: It may be brought in, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to proceed with it, but I hope that we may be able to bring in a Bill which will show exactly what we propose.

PRISONS (SUICIDE AND INSANITY).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 39 and 40
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, as stated in English prisons to-day, that, despite the precautions taken against suicide the suicide rate is three times as high among prisoners as among the ordinary population: if so, whether he is prepared to call for Reports from the prison medical officers on the subject;
(2) whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Prison System Inquiry Committee that the ratio of insanity among prisoners, after deducting the cases where prisoners are regarded as mentally unsound on reception, is nearly five times higher than among the ordinary; population; and whether he is prepared to call for Reports on this matter from the medical officers of prisons?

Mr. SHORTT: I have seen the statements referred to, but they are entirely misleading. There is no doubt that among
persons received into prisons there is an abnormally high proportion of persons prone to insanity and suicide, and before any comparison is made between the prison and the ordinary population, this factor and many others must be taken into account. For example, the ratio among the prison population, which consists of persons over 16 years of age, cannot properly be compared for these purposes with the ratio among the ordinary population of all ages.

ROAD TRAFFIC (RULES).

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 41.
asked the Home Secretary by whose authority the Safety-first Council has placarded London with orders to the public to keep to the left; and whether, in view of the confusion in the public mind, caused by the conflict of opinion on this point between various public bodice, he will advise the setting up of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of rules of the road, and as to whether it would be advisable to change the rule of the road for vehicles to keep to the right, as is the case in most civilised countries in the world, and which is also the rule at sea and in the air?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no information on the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I am not aware of any necessity for changing the present rule of the road for vehicles which is laid down by Statute, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In view of the fact that there is no statutory rule of the road for pedestrians, and of the increasing volume of motor traffic in the country, would it not be well to have a Committee to inquire into the advisability of introducing legislation?

Mr. SHORTT: That is another matter which I will consider.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does not it arise out of the first part of my question? In view of the fact that there are three contradictory rules issued by all sorts of people all over the country which are creating disorder, would it not be well to have a proper Statute on the subject?

Mr. SHORTT: There are no rules at all. What you see on the pavement is entirely a voluntary effort.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it hot illegal to write on the pavement? If it is not illegal, should I be in order in writing "L.G.M.G." on the pavement?

WOMEN POLICE (MRS. STANLEY).

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that he has laid upon the Table of the House a statement by one of the women patrols containing allegations against Mrs. Stanley, the head of the force, he will also lay upon the Table of the House the comments, if any, culled for from Mrs. Stanley upon the statement before its publication as to its accuracy or otherwise?

Mr. SHORTT: A statement has been received from Mrs. Stanley denying the accuracy of the statement made by Inspector Why les, and as the latter has been published I think it only right that Mrs. Stanley's statement should also be published forthwith, and I am accordingly laying it on the Table of the House. As the whole matter will clearly have to form the subject of a disciplinary inquiry, I must refrain from comment at this stage.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Did the right hon. Gentleman obtain any comments from Mrs. Stanley before he made the statement containing allegations against her?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

Lord R. CECIL: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman submitted the statement to the House without any attempt to check its accuracy in any way?

Mr. SHORTT: The statement was obtained by the Commissioner of Police and was brought out owing to a statement made by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). When I mentioned it I was asked to publish it, but when I came into the House I had no intention of using it. It was brought out in the course of the Debate and I had to put it on the Table.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer amount to this, that he submitted to the House a state-
ment as to which he had no ground whatever for saying whether it was accurate or not?

Mr. SHORTT: It was taken by the Commissioner from a very responsible officer.

Captain W. BENN: As the House, in coming to a decision, was greatly influenced by the statement of the Home Secretary, how is the House to set the matter right, if that turn out to be the case?

Sir J. BUTCHER: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate every question.

VALUATION ROLLS, SCOTLAND.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the effects of the decision of the Courts in the case of Kerr v. Bryde; and if he proposes to introduce legislation to prevent the confusion arising from this decision, including the rectification of entries in the valuation rolls for the current year?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): I am aware of the decision referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. The question of amending legislation is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not consider that, unless something is done at once, the budget of every local authority in Scotland for the past two years will be thrown into confusion, and thousands of pounds will have to be repaid on account of alleged over-payment of rates?

Mr. C. D. MURRAY: The urgent necessity for either judicial or legislative action is fully before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SENIORITY ON TRANSFER.

Mr. BETTERTON: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Regulations of the Post Office, which prescribe that a Post Office servant cannot retain his seniority on transfer
unless the transfer is a compulsory one, operate with great hardship upon their servants who, by reason of disability the direct result of war service, are compelled to ask for a transfer; and whether, seeing that such cases should be placed in a different category to those where the transfer is asked merely to suit the-personal convenience of the transferor, he will make such alteration in the Regulations as will ensure that Post Office servants who suffer disability as a direct result of war service shall not be penalised in consequence of disability arising from such service?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): To allow seniority to be carried in cases of transfer on the grounds of health would result in inflicting hardship on a number of officers through no fault of their own. The present rule that seniority is not carried in such cases has been in force for many years, and is accepted by the staff generally as the most equitable arrangement.

Mr. BETTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a wide distinction between the case of a man who leaves his locality as a result of disability caused by war service, and the case of a man who leaves a locality merely to suit his own purposes?

Mr. PEASE: I sympathise with those cases. But this arrangement is accepted by the staff generally as the best method. Anyone who sympathises with these particular men must also sympathise with those who lose their seniority.

Mr. BETTERTON: As the right hon. Gentleman says he is sympathetic, would he be prepared to receive a deputation or representations from members of the staff, who are by no means satisfied?

Mr. PEASE: I will have to consider that suggestion.

MONEYLENDERS' CIRCULARS.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the advisability of applying to touting moneylenders and to persons carrying on other businesses which are noxious to the community the same postal restrictions as are applied to persons who offend against the lottery laws; and is he aware that in some of the British Dominions
the Post Office has, and exercises with benefit to the community, the power of suppressing or strictly limiting nefarious undertakings by refusing them the right to use the Post Office?

Mr. PEASE: The laws relating to lotteries and certain other matters prohibit the use of the post in connection therewith. There is, however, no similar legislation regarding money lending. I have no power to interfere with moneylenders' circulars sent through the post. I am aware of the facts stated as regards certain British Dominions.

DELAYED DELIVERIES (BURY ST EDMUNDS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether in many recent instances letters posted in Leicester and London have taken three or four days to be delivered in Bury St. Edmunds; whether he can explain why these delays take place; and whether, in view of the inconvenience and loss of orders caused to traders, he will take steps to prevent their recurrence.?

Mr. PEASE: My attention has been drawr to the delay to a number of packets posted in London, and one posted in Leicester during a recent week-end, which were prepaid one halfpenny only. The delay in London was partly attributable to the fact that the packets were posted after 3.30 p.m., and wore, in accordance with Regulations, liable to be held over till next day, and partly to exceptional pressure owing to a heavy arrival of mails at the time. The Postmaster-General has power to delay all packets, other than those sent at the letter rate of postage in such circumstances, if the letters would otherwise suffer delay. The packet posted in Leicester should have been delivered on the following Monday instead of, as actually happened, on Tuesday. I am having further inquiry made in this case and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the deliberate delay on letters with a halfpenny stamp, not posted before half-past three, causes very great inconvenience to the business community, who are in the habit of making up their post towards the end of the day, and will he find a means of abating this very serious inconvenience?

Mr. PEASE: I will see if anything can be done in the matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT (NECESSITOUS AREAS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the decision of the Government with regard to their promised reconsideration of the measures to be taken to relieve necessitous local authorities from the extra burden placed upon them by the working of the five weeks' gap period in the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given yesterday in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. THOMSON: Are we to understand that the concession announced by the Prime Minister is the limit to which the Government is prepared to go to meet the deputation that waited on them some weeks ago from necessitous areas?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. A Bill will be introduced, and opportunities for raising these points will then occur.

Mr. MALONE: Is the Prime Minister still prepared to consider suggestions as to what is a necessitous area?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A Bill will have to be passed through the House in the next few days, and no doubt opportunities for discussing these points will arise during the passage of the Bill.

CABINET SECRETARIAT.

Captain W. BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in addition to the officials of the Cabinet Secretariat, he has the services of any other private secretaries; if so, at what cost: and in connection with what Departments do they discharge their duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Cabinet Secretariat is not a private secretariat, either to the Prime Minister or to any other individual Cabinet Minister. In common with all other Ministers, the First Lord of the Treasury has the services of private secretaries, the cost of the allowances payable for such services amounting to £2,600.

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHS (RECOGNITION).

Mr. A. HERBERT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister how many constitutional monarchs are not recognised at the present moment by His Majesty's Government, and who are they?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): One monarch only—King Constantine.

Mr. HERBERT: May I ask whether the Greeks were not received at Genoa, and how he can logically reconcile the recognition of the—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked only for a figure—"how many. "Nothing more arises out of that question.

Mr. MILLS: Can the Under-Secretary say why it is that individuals are masquerading around, as King Manoel does?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (CONVENTIONS).

Mr. G. BARNES: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Sea! if he can yet name a day for the presentation to the House of the conventions and recommendations arising out of the last Labour Conference?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot at present add anything to the answer which was given to my right hon. Friend on Tuesday last.

Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received no reply at all, and, further, that 12 months is the normal period within which these conventions ought to be submitted to the competent authorities, and that I have been worrying the Minister of Labour for the last month or two and got no reply at all; and, further, will he see that some representations are made to the Minister in the sense that this obligation is not a mere scrap of paper, but an honourable bond?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I furnished myself with the text of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to
the right hon. Member on Tuesday last. It was to this effect
These recommendations are being considered by the Government, and I am not in a position to make any definite statement on the subject at present.
I cannot add anything to that now. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman made the same supplementary comment then that he has made to-day, and I have no doubt that these comments will be duly weighed.

Mr. BARNES: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall certainly tell the Prime Minister what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this country was responsible for the labour charter included in these treaties, and does he not think it is incumbent on this country to put these Conventions into operation in order to set other countries an example?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Mr. MARRIOTT: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the post held by Sir Hardman Lever at the Ministry of Transport was created in consequence of an undertaking given by the Government during the passage of the Ministry of Transport Bill in 1019 that a Treasury official should be added to the Ministry to exercise some control over the expenditure of the Ministry during the period of railway control, he will consider whether, in view of the decontrol of the railways, it is any longer necessary to continue a post carrying a salary of £5,000 a year, now that the object for which the post was created no longer exists?

Sir J. BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): With the termination of Government control, the Ministry of Transport is left with the responsibility for settling questions of great financial magnitude still outstanding between the Government, on the one hand, and the railway companies on the other. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in answer to a similar question on the 3rd July, Sir George Beharrel has been
specially retained for the conduct of these intricate negotiations, and discharges, in addition, the duties of the post of Director of Finance and Statistics in the Ministry, for which a salary of: £2,500 has been allotted. The special remuneration at the rate of £5,000 a year only exists until 31st December, as is shown in the Estimate submitted. The terms of Sir George Beharrels continued employment in the Ministry of Transport were fully considered, and in my right hon. Friend's judgment are thoroughly justified.

Mr. GRITTEN: When is the Ministry of Transport to be abolished altogether?

Mr. MARRIOTT: Will this remuneration definitely cease on 30th September?

Sir J. BAIRD: On 31st December.

Mr. GRITTEN: May I have an answer to my little question?

Colonel ASHLEY: Do we understand that from 1st January next £2,500 a year is bring spent by the nation on this official?

Sir. J. BAIRD: The additional salary at the rate of £5,000 a year comes to an end on 31st December. The salary of the official will then remain at £2,500.

Mr. HANNON: Have not these officers rendered very valuable service to the State, and were the services rendered not out of all proportion to the small salaries receive.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

GOVERNMENT STOCKS (DIVIDENDS).

Mr. WISE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to pay dividends on all Government registered stocks quarterly instead of half-yearly?

Sir J. BAIRD: The answer is in the negative. I see no reason why an unconvenanted benefit of the kind proposed should be given to holders of Government stock without some equivalent being secured for the taxpayer.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: If that proposal were put into operation, would it not cost us a sum of not less than £1,000,000 sterling out of taxation?

CURRENCY NOTES, GERMANY.

Mr. WISE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of currency notes in circulation in Germany at the time of the Armistice and in January, 1921, January, 1922, and to date?

Sir J. BAIRD: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement promised;


GERMAN NOTE CIRCULATION.


(In Millions of Marks.)


—
Reichsbank Notes.
Loan and a Treasury Notes.
Total.


Nov. 15, 1918
17,454
10,170
27,624


Jan. 7, 1921
67,976
12,152
80,128


Jan. 7, 1922
113,140
8,512
121,652


June 23, 1922
157,935
9,785
167,720


June 3O, 1922
169,212
Not available.
—

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 60.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has had brought to his notice the fact that widows are now being refused pensions under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant because their husbands died more than seven years after discharge, although death was directly attributable to the wound, injury, or disease admitted as due to service; and whether he will take steps to amend the Royal Warrant by extending the period of eligibility, so as to prevent such cases of hardship?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Ministry of Pensions has received resolutions from the Nottingham Pensions Committee, the Nottingham Board of Guardians, and the Nottingham branch of the British Legion impressing upon the Government the necessity of amending the Royal Warrant, Article II, whereby widows are being refused pensions because their husbands died more than seven years after discharge although death was directly attributable to the
wound, injury, or disease admitted as due to service; and whether the Government is prepared to alter its decision?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I would refer to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth, Central, on the 13th June, of which I am sending copies.

Mr. DAVIES: Do we understand from the previous answer that all such cases as mentioned in my question are to be referred to the Ministry of Pensions for consideration?

Major TRYON: The answer was, in the main, to the effect that the whole question is now being gone into and individual cases are also being considered.

APPEALS (PRéCIS).

Captain BOWYER: 61.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in the précis prepared for appellants before pension appeal tribunals extracts from original documents are often very inaccurately and carelessly copied, and that often important details are omitted, which not only prejudice the appellants, but confuse the court; and will he inquire into the matter?

Major TRYON: My right hon. Friend has gone into this matter very fully, and deprecates most strongly the suggestion of general failure in the preparation of accurate précis for which he is convinced no foundation exists. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this work is carried out with care and accuracy. The President of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal has expressed the same opinion as the result of his wide experience. I may also point out that it is always open to the appellant to challenge any statement in the précis which is sent to him before the hearing, and that the original documents from which the précis is prepared are always in court, and available to the tribunal for reference. The hon. and gallant Member has given me no evidence justifying the charge he makes.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Why does the Ministry continue to refuse to give these men the assistance of a soldier's friend before the tribunal?

Major TRYON: As I have often said, it is the duty of our committees to render
every possible assistance to these men. Our orders to all our committees are that they are themselves to help in every way any applicant, and to see that the whole of his case is properly brought before the tribunal.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER G. TILLEY).

Captain BOWYER: 62.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Sapper G. Tilley, No. 510039, I.W.D., Royal Engineers, who is now living at 58, Queen Ann Street, New Bradwell, Bucks; is he aware that this man, after having also served in the 18th Hampshires and Gloucester Hussars, received a small pension on demobilisation, and worked as a fitter for about 12 months at the London and North Western Railway works. Wolverton; that he has now been out of work for one year and nine months, but has now been offered a good job at Llandudno at 49s. a week, and that Mr. Tilley failed to get this job because the doctor at Wolverton would not pass him fit: and will he cause Mr. Tilley's pension to be increased in order to compensate him for this loss of work, and to provide him with a pension upon which he can live?

Major TRYON: The amount of disablement pension is determined solely by the extent of the disablement as assessed from time to time by a medical board with regard to medical considerations alone. Such factors as wages, earning capacity, employment or unemployment were expressly excluded, with the approval of Parliament, from consideration in connection with the award of disablement pension. My right hon. Friend is unable to supplement this man's pension on the grounds suggested in the last part of the question.

Captain BOWYER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to this and the previous question, instead of asking supplementary questions, I give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

RAMSBOTTOM AREA.

Mr. W. HALLS: 63.
asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds it has been decided to close down the local War pensions office in the Ramsbottom area, No. 19; is he aware that there are 2,500 ex-service men in the area, 600 ex-service
men pensioners, and 250 War widows in receipt of pensions; that it will mean that those who still need advice, etc., will have to travel six miles, and in that case who is to bear the expense; and, in view of the fact that the pensions officer, who held a commission in His Majesty's forces and lost a leg in the War, gives invaluable help to these people, being familiar with each individual case, will he reconsider his decision with a view to the office being continued, if not open all the week at least two days per week?

Major TRYON: As the volume of current work at Ramsbottom is small it is considered that it can be administered from Bury without occasioning inconvenience to pensioners. I may mention that a resident of Ramsbottom has been appointed a member of the new committee, and that it is one of the duties of committees established under the War Pensions Act, 1921, to secure the assistance and co-operation of voluntary workers in their area.

Mr. HALLS: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that these people are going to be placed at a very serious disadvantage, seeing that they have six miles to go, and has he noted, as stated in the question, that there are 600 ex-service men pensioners and 250 War widows in the area?

Major TRYON: We shall, of course, watch the working of this new arrangement, and we shall not continue anything which is in any way wrong, but we have gone into this particular case and ascertainec that in a month which we took as a test, there were only fifty new applications in the whole month. It does not seem economical to keep a whole office, with one highly-paid officer in charge, to deal with a small amount of work.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that part of the question which has reference to the payment of the expenses of travelling the six miles?

Major TRYON: I cannot undertake to pay the expenses of men, unless we are summoning them to a medical board or an examination of that kind.

Mr. HALLS: Has not the hon. Gentleman gathered that applicants are already at a serious disadvantage for advice and
so on, and will not these people be at a much worse disadvantage in being so far removed from the centre?

Major TRYON: I consider myself that arrangements for a few good, well-organised areas will tend, on the whole, to greater speed in the management of individual cases. It is obviously impossible to keep an office in every place where for a whole month there would be only 50 new applications.

GEEECE AND TUEKEY.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the present position of the negotiations between the three Entent Powers in reference to the settlement of the future relationship of Greece and Turkey in the Near East?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not received notice of the question.

Mr. MALONE: Can the House be informed what is delaying the negotiations?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will put the question to-morrow.

EGYPT (ZAGHLOUL PASHA).

Mr. MILLS: (by Private Notice.)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the last report was received from the Seychelles as to the state of health of H. E. Zaghloul Pasha; whether he is aware that relatives have failed to obtain any information since 21st June, and, in view of his state of health, are greatly alarmed; and whether he will advise those responsible to allow regular cable communications to pass between these relatives and friends and Zaghloul Pasha, as cables received in England show that great anxiety prevails?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The last report received respecting the health of Zaghloul Pasha is dated 3rd July, and states that early in June he suffered from slight bronchitis and asthma, which have now abated. There is, however, some cardiac weakness and his general condition is not wholly satisfactory. Correspondence
to and from the Egyptian deportees in the Seychelles is transmitted through the intermediary of Lord Allenby, and I am not aware whether it has been found necessary to stop or censor any of it. A report on this point is being called for.

Captain GEE: Are not the questions referring to this gentleman so frequently put entirely due to the fact that he owns five thousand odd shares in the "Daily Herald"?

Mr. MILLS: On a point of Order. After asking that question, I waited on what I presumed was to be a supplementary question, instead of a lying insult.

Mr. SPEAKER: Those are not words to be allowed in this House.

Mr. J. JONES: What about the others?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member challenges the correctness of what was said, he can challenge it in proper terms, without using the words he did use. He can deny the allegation made.

Mr. MILLS: I respectfully ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, because—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. MILLS: Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, as to the way in which I can deal with this kind of innuendo?

Captain BOWYER: Is it true?

Mr. MILLS: It is not true.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must first withdraw the words he used. He is then entitled to give his denial to the suggestion of the supplementary question.

Mr. MILLS: In order to conform to Parliamentary procedure, I will withdraw those words, and substitute for them "inaccurate innuendo."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite entitled to do that.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (FABRIC GLOVES).

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he can
state the terms of reference to Sir H. Rew's Committee in the matter of the Fabric Glove Order?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. The terms are as follow:
To consider what effect, if any, the application of Part II of I he Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, to fabric gloves and glove fabric manufactured in Germany would exert upon employment in the fine cotton spinning industry of the United Kingdom.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Sir D. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the draft Resolutions in regard to the reform of the Second Chamber are to be published?

Mr. CHURCHILL: An announcement will be made this afternoon in another place, and it is hoped that the text of the Resolutions will be available as a Parliamentary Paper at 6 o'clock this evening, or, possibly, shortly after that time.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether these draft Resolutions are to be debated and decided upon in another place before the House rises?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand it is the intention that they shall be debated next week in another place. Whether they will be decided upon is another matter. The subject is very extensive, and may meet with very considerable discussion.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it proposed to bring these Resolutions before the House of Commons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not in the first instance. They primarily concern the Second Chamber, and our function arises more in regard to the relation between the two Houses than in regard to the exact composition of the Second Chamber, though both, no doubt. are within the purview of this House.

Captain BENN: Is it the intention of the Government to pass these Resolutions or to found any legislation on them before the dissolution?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The intentions of the Government have been so abundantly declared in this matter that I should not like to attempt to add anything.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonics what business is proposed to be taken to-morrow by way of a change in the announcement already made.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As it is of great importance that the Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is a very short one should come into operation as early as possible, it is proposed to take the Second Reading of this Bill as the first Order to-morrow, but I sincerely hope that the House will co-operate in every possible way, so that there should be no delay in proceeding as rapidly as possible with the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

EMPIRE COTTON-GROWING CORPORATION.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the collection of a contribution by spinners in the United Kingdom.
This is a Bill which is of vital importance to the cotton trade, the object being to safeguard the continued supply of raw cotton available to the cotton trade by developing the resources of the Empire and of the Protectorates which are governed by the Empire. This Bill imposes an obligation upon cotton spinners in the United Kingdom, but that obligation is imposed upon them at their own request. Over 90 per cent. of the owners of spindles in this country are anxious, of their own free will, to pay a regular and standardised levy for the purpose of augmenting the funds at the disposal of the Empire Cotton-growing Corporation, and it is the desire of all the associations, whether of employers or employed, including the Liverpool and Manchester cotton associations and all the trade unions: identified with the cotton trade, that this obligation, which has been accepted voluntarily by the spinners, should receive Parliamentary sanction and be enforced by Act of Parliament.
The origin of the Bill dates from last year. The Empire Cotton-growing Corporation was incorporated by Royal Charter on the 1st November, 1921, and the State is very largely represented on its administrative council and upon the board of trustees in whom its funds are vested. During the last financial year, the State contributed £978,000 odd for the put poses of the Corporation, which purposes involve the growth and cultivation of raw cotton, and that grant was made conditional upon a substantial contribution being made by the cotton-spinning industry itself towards the funds of the corporation. It is in order to fulfil its obligations to the Crown that this Bill has been introduced. There are only two important provisions in this Bill. The first is that on every purchase of cotton by a spinner a sum of 6d. for every 500 lbs. gross weight of cotton shall be contributed by the spinner towards the funds of the corporation. The second material provision in the Bill is to enable this levy to be collected through the agency of the Liverpool and Manchester cotton associations. The idea is that the amount of this levy shall be added to the invoice, and that when the spinner pays the bill, that should operate as a good discharge to him for his contribution towards the funds of the Empire Cotton-growing Corporation.
The House is well aware of the urgent necessity for developing the cotton supply available for this country. Since the War, the Egyptian cotton crop has materially diminished and is now only three-sevenths of what it was before 1914. At the same time, owing to diseases in the cotton crop in the United States, and owing to the vast increase in the demand for domestic consumption in the United States, the amount of American cotton available for Lancashire is very much less than it was before the War. This year it is expected that only 8,500,000 bales of American cotton will be available, as against the pre-War standard of 13,500,000 bales. While the existing cotton supplies are being curtailed in this way, there is an illimitable vista of cotton supplies in the Sudan, Tanganyika, and other Dominions under the British flag, and the vision of developing and bringing these new sources of cotton supply into existence to redeem the deficiencies of the old has caught the imagination of the cotton trade. This Bill is an attempt to
give that vision practical accomplishment, and, as I say, it is supported by more than 90 per cent, of the spinners in this country. The only other point I should like to draw attention to is this. It may be asked why is not this burden left purely voluntary, for it is in its essence a voluntary effort? No help is asked from the State at all. It is a case of self-help, not of State help, but lest there be a few backsliders who wish to avoid a common burden while accepting the common benefit, it is desired to make this levy, which is voluntary in its origin, compulsory in its operation. I hope the House will acquiesce in the bringing forward of this Bill and that the Government will give ample facilities for its passage into law during the course of the present Session. Without involving any cost on the public, without involving any administration by the State in any way, Parliament, by enabling this Bill to pass into law, will be giving help to the greatest of our textile industries and placing it upon far surer and sounder foundations in the future than it is at the present time. That is the sole motive which lies behind this Bill, and, in my submission, that is ample justification for it. At the same time might I quite incidentally, remark that the passing of this Bill into law will bring nearer to realisation that long-cherished ideal of a self-sufficing Empire which ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth has inspired so many of the pioneers and pathfinders of Greater Britain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member oppose the Bill?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I rise to oppose the Bill, and I shall very shortly explain why. If there be this shortage of cotton in view, as the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce foreshadowed the other day, why on earth cannot the cotton spinners of Lancashire put their money, of which they have plenty, into companies and syndicates for the development of the magnificent cotton lands of the Empire.

Mr. SUGDEN: Would you take advice from us?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I would certainly follow the hon.
Member's advice in this if in no other matter. Here is a great opportunity for the merchant adventurers who, by their own initiative and boldness, have carried out these projects in the cast, to step in and do this excellent business, without introducing the dead hand of the Government and compulsion, which will destroy that initiative.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: Perhaps I may remind the hon. and gallant Member that this Bill refers entirely to the contributions of the cotton spinners, and that nothing is to come out of his pocket.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I realise that fact, but it does not in any way reconcile me to the object of the Bill. Why should the cotton spinners of Lancashire, of all people, come here through the hon. and learned Member, if he does speak for them, and ask us to force them to contribute their own money to ensure their own supplies of cotton? The thing is absolutely absurd. Here we have control reduced to its last and most absurd extremity. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a shortage of cotton. If we pursue a decent land policy towards the natives of our cotton-growing dependencies—I am glad that a representative of the Colonial Office (Mr. Wood) is here—they will grow enough cotton to supply this deficiency. If we do not try and run them as hard slaves, but try and make them a self-supporting, land-owning peasantry, as we have done with regard to the copra and oil-producing lands of West Africa, they will grow and provide all the cotton needed without these artificial, compulsory, ridiculous powers for which the hon. and learned Member asks. I would like, if it were in order, to tell him to help the cotton spinners of Lancashire by helping us to oppose the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I hope it is not too late for him to learn wisdom on that subject from his own constituents. Apart from the Empire itself- -and I agree that we have magnificent cotton-growing lands in the Empire—there are vast cotton-growing lands in Turkistan that have been developed during the War owing to other supplies not being available, and these fertile districts east of the Caspian only want opening out to produce all the cotton necessary.

Captain ELLIOT: They are Bolshevists.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As a matter of fact, they are fighting the Bolshevists at the present time. A previous idol of the hon. and learned Member, Enver Pasha, is against the Bolshevists, and I am sorry to say he is supported in a back-handed way by some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's friends in the Government. Here is a part of the world which has tremendous cotton-growing possibilities. If they are Bolshevists, they are only so because Moscow was a greater magnet to them than Whitehall. If only we open up trade in that part of the world and develop the great cotton-growing possibilities of these lands in addition to our own magnificent -territories, this Bill will be unnecessary. I am astonished that any hon. Member claiming to speak for Lancashire should ask for these petty-fogging, compulsory powers. They have plenty of money in Lancashire. They do not know where to find investments for it as the returns of our gilt-edged securities every week show. Do not let them come and ask us to spoonfeed them and to help them to bring their obstinate members to reason. This Bill would make us look perfectly ridiculous, would make the cotton spinners look even more ridiculous, and would make my hon. and gallant Friend look most ridiculous of all.
Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the collection of a contribution by spinners in the United Kingdom," put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Sir William Barton, Mr. dynes, Sir Edmund Bartley-Denniss, Sir Thomas Robinson, Mr. Pennefather, Mr. Waddington, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Lieut.-Colonel Nall and Mr. James Bell.

EMPIRE COTTON-GROWING CORPORATION BILL,

"to provide for the collection of a contribution by cotton-spinners in the United Kingdom to the funds of the Empire Cotton-growing Association, and other matters relating to the said Corporation, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL,

"to amend Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, so far as relates to the third special period mentioned in that Act," presented by Dr. MACNAMARA; supported by Sir Robert Home, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Munro, Sir Montague Barlow, and Sir Leslie Scott; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Adoption of Children Bill): Sir Robert Newman; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Brown.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill [Lords] and the Telegraph (Money) Bill): Mr. Remer; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Surtees.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 10 Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill): Sir John Baird, Sir John Butcher, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Rose, Mr. Shortt, Mr. Stewart, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, Colonel Wedgwood, and Sir Richard Winfrey.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill [Lords:] Sir Hamilton Benn, Sir Joseph Davies, Mr. Gilbert, Colonel Sir James Greig, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Neil Maclean, Sir William Raeburn, Sir George Renwick, Mr. Spencer, and Sir William Mitchell-Thomson.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Mem-
ber from Standing Committee C: Mr. Hannon; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Samuel Scott.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Viscount Elveden, Mr. Foot, and Mr. MacVeagh; and had appointed in substitution (during the consideration of the Allotments Bill [Lords):] Mr. Acland, Major Barnes, and Mr. Perkins.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Leslie Scott.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords):] Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Greenwood, Sir Harry Greer, Mr. Walter Halls, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hogge, Sir Joseph Hood, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kiley, Sir George Croydon Marks, Mr. Walter Smith, Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, Sir Courtenay Warner and Mr. Murrough Wilson.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill): Viscountess Astor; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Robinson Graham and Sir Alfred Smithers; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Solicitors Bill [Lords)]: Sir Ernest Pollock, Mr. Bowerman, Sir William Bull, Mr. Evans, Sir James Greig, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Major Hills, Mr. Hogge, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Sir Philip Magnus, Sir Herbert Nield, Captain Tudor Rees, Mr. Samuel Roberts, and Mr. Spoor.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Eleven Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords):] Sir Gervase Beckett, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. Finney, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Sir Philip Magnus, Major-General Seely, Major Steel, Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, Captain Watson, Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White, and Mr. James Wilson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Amendments to, Croydon Gas Bill [Lords,]

Torquay Corporation (Electricity) Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation."[Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]"

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS' ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS V.

MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,363,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Grants in Aid."—[NOTE: £6,000,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I wish at the outset to make a protest against the way in which these Estimates are presented to us. I do not know whether hon. Members have the Votes before them, but, if they want to find out what is the cost to the country of the Middle Eastern services, they must first of all pursue a diligent search through the Colonial Office Vote. They will find in Vote 7 the Secretariat of the Middle East Department. If there be any delusion that that is the end of the cost of the Middle East Department, I would refer hon. Members to Vote 3 of Class 5 which is now before the Committee. There they will find that the amount required for the coming year for sundry Middle Eastern services comes to a total of £10,363,100. That cannot be all of it, because there must be some other charges for the transport of military forces, air personnel, material for the Air Force, armoured cars and tanks, and the new special form of Rolls-Royce car which was supposed to dominate Iraq, and which goes there at somebody's expense.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): It goes there at the expense of the Middle Eastern Vote.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is not here at all. How is it charged? It is part of the settled policy of His Majesty's Government to have inside the Colonial Office a War Office for the Middle Eastern Department. They indent the War Office for the force that they require, and then, instead of the cost coming on the War Office Estimate, the Colonial Office pays the War Office. I remember when the War Office Estimates were before us earlier in the year and also last year, that I tried to find out the total cost of the armed forces of the Crown, and the Secretary of State for War said that I should find the cost of the forces operating in the Middle East in the Colonial Office Vote. One, therefore, had to find out by reference to the Colonial Office Vote what was the total War Office expenditure. As I understand it, this new Department was set up so that there should be collated within the Vote of the Colonial Office the total expenditure of that particular office. They were, in operating upon the Middle East, dealing with two or three different problems, and the best thing to do was to get them altogether and deal with them with a permanent Secretariat. It looks to me as if the need for a permanent Secretariat for handling this part of the Middle East is about to disappear, or, at any rate, to get very much lees. I hope, therefore that it will be regarded, not as a permanent, but merely as a temporary institution, and that we shall get back again to the much simpler form of the War Office sending troops and the War Office itself carrying the expenditure and being responsible for it. If we were going to start a new British Empire in the East and run it under the Colonial Office with all its military equipment, I suppose this would be the way to do it. But I understand that is not the intention of the Government, and I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the country. We have quite enough on our hands with our present commitments; I hope, therefore, that this is merely a temporary arrangement to deal with what I hope is a rapidly changing situation.
Let me, on that point, ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. He has appeared at the Bar, as it were, on two previous occasions in connection with these Votes. He introduced a Supplementary Estimate earlier in the year and made an interesting speech, and last
week, when the Colonial Office Vote was before us, we had a very interesting statement from the Under-Secretary of State, followed by a general Debate and a Debate on the question of Palestine, which occupied the attention of the Committee from 8 o'clock till 11 o'clock. Therefore, this is really the first time we have been able to really address ourselves to the question of administration in Iraq and its cost. In the first place, I noticed that in the Colonial Office Vote, where the Middle East Secretariat is dealt with, there is an additional cost of £1,000. I would like to ask why has the cost of this Secretariat gone up from £8,720 last year to £9,631 this year. There must be some reason for it. With the problem getting less and the difficulties not increasing I should have thought that the cost of officials would have decreased in proportion to the lessening of the problem.
I want to ask some questions with regard to the Middle East services. First of all, I want to deal with Sub-head A amounting to £9,096,000. It is a matter of great satisfaction that that item has been reduced this year from £24,221,000 last year to a little over £9,000,000 this year. I welcome that, and I think it is almost in identical conformity with the hope which the right hon. Gentleman expressed some months ago as to what was likely to happen. Before I deal with the question of policy, I would like the Colonial Secretary to answer one or two questions with regard to Sub-head C.1 and C.2, and also Sub-head B. Why is it that under Sub-head C.1 (the High Commissioner, salaries and expenses) have increased by no less than £10,000? If hon. Members will look at the explanatory note they will find it states that
This amount is required as a contribution towards meeting part of the salaries and incidental expenses of the High Commissioner and his personal and political staff.
What is the total cost to both India and ourselves? It must be a very considerable sum. There is an increase of £10,000, and I should like to know why that increase has happened this year. I take next Sub-head C.2 (Provision and Maintenance of Quarters for Staff). That is not a new expense, and there is no comparison with last year at all. It is a fresh expenditure as compared with last
year of no less than £23,000. I look at the Sub-head and I find it says:
A sum of £15,000 is required for the erection of certain outbuildings to the residency and for quartets for certain officials of the High Commissioner's staff.
I notice there is also £8,000 for repairs. What does that really mean? Does that indicate new big permanent buildings for the Commissioner and hip staff? Surely that is an expenditure which might very well be avoided if the policy which has been indicated and adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman is being carried out. What is the amount, and what is the reason for it? On this question of buildings the Committee ought to have some idea of the immense sums this country has been spending in Iraq, which amount to no less than £1,906,000, or nearly £2,000,000. This item is shown on the Appropriation Account published a few weeks ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Dealing with last year.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We know that the figures are for 1920–21, because the Public Accounts Committee always works a year after the event. I am dealing with the latest public work of the Public Accounts Committee, and that shows that £2,000,000 has been spent on these buildings. On this item I do not find anything like the reduction one would expect when you drop your defence expenses from £25,000,000 down to {9,000,000. Why have not the expenses on permanent buildings being reduced in the same proportion? Now I come to Sub-head D (Maintenance of Native Levies). I was only able to see this document at a very late hour last night, but it is one of some considerable interest. It accounts for the sum of £600,000 for the current year as compared with £667.000 for last year. It says:
This force is under the orders of the High Commissioner and is distinct from the Iraq Army, the whole cost of which is borne on Iraq revenues. The sum provided represents the cost of maintaining the force at an estimated strength of 5,500 throughout the financial year.
It has cost the country £600,000 to provide an army acting under the orders of the High Commissioner. I want the Colonial Secretary to tell the Committee how many armies there are in Iraq. Here, at any rate, is one costing £600,000 this year and £687,000 last year, or altogether about £1,250,000. Then there is the Im-
perial Force as well, and also the Air Force. In addition to that there is the Iraq Army, the cost, of which is borne entirely on the local funds. Therefore you have three separate military forces in Iraq. I do not know what is going to happen if there is an intervention of the tribesmen from Southern Kurdistan. How is that army going to operate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by intervention? Does he mean invasion?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That really raises a very important point. One of the most difficult problems of Iraq is the inclusion within the Mandate of Southern Kurdistan. That is a most important and difficult question which has been dealt with by one or two hon. and gallant Members opposite. They have spoken with considerable knowledge from the military point of view of the dangers which are ever lurking there. Who is going to meet those incursions? If you are going to cut down your expenditure and gradually withdraw from the country you have three armies to settle with. We should like an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of those points which I have committed to him.
There is another point in this connection. He knows perfectly well the feeling among the Indian forces in Iraq where they do not get on well with the native levies. We have been told that there is great unrest in Southern Kurdistan, and I cannot imagine that that is a position which gives any satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote. I pass from that to the subject of railways and the cost to this country. On the same page there is a capital expenditure on Iraq railways this year of £70,000, in addition to the £300,000 spent last year. How many millions altogether the railways there have cost this country I do not know, because it is very difficult to disentangle all these items. Such investigations as I have been able to make lead me to believe that millions of British money have been poured out upon railways in Iraq, and there was £300,000 for last year alone. On this point I would like to quote what my right hon. Friend and leader laid down on this question two years ago as to what should be the policy of the Government. He said:
The Mandate ought to be confined as far as our direct administrative responsibility
is concerned to those parts of Iraq which are within reach of the Persian Gulf, which includes the zone of Basra.
That speech was made in 1920, and it looks as if it there were some chance of that policy forming the policy of His Majesty's Government. If that is so, why go on with this large expenditure on railways? Who is going to get the railways and have we had any offers for them? Is the President of the Board of Trade taking any part in Iraq administration, and is he likely to take over these railways? We have recently had some very interesting and amusing descriptions on Parliamentary administration in Iraq and the question was asked the other day whether the Iraq President of the Board of Trade had tendered his resignation and whether it had been withdrawn. We may have all sorts of opportunities for making further inquiry with regard to Iraq administration, but what I want to know is what is the policy of the Government with regard to the immense sums already spent on railways. How are they gripping that important financial fact? Perhaps I may get an answer to that later on.
I come next to the point which is no doubt of the greatest general interest, and that is the real policy, if there be one, of His Majesty's Government with regard to Trag. There was a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) as to whether the terms of the Treaty regulating the relations between the British and the Arab Governments had now been agreed upon. There seems quite substantial evidence that the Arabs, through their representatives and their King, are very discontented with the present condition of affairs under the mandate. I do not pretend to speak with special knowledge on the matter, but they resent the slight put upon Arab nationality by the continuance of the mandate and the British administration in its present form. They want to get back to the promises or pledges of Arab independence and sovereignty. They want to combine that complete independence with the advantage of the British people paying the expense. They cannot have it both ways. There is clearly, so far as I can observe, a situation arising, if it has not already arisen, in which, if the. Government are wisely guided and if they properly direct their policy, we may have an opportunity of
cutting our losses in Iraq and bringing our hold on that country practically down to the policy which was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley two years and some months ago. What is being done with regard to that? There are chances which arise and have arisen in the history of the administration of our Empire in various parts of the world for the reversal of a policy which has been ill-conceived grossly extravagant, and dangerous to the peace of the Commonwealth. I think such a chance is within the grasp of the Government to-day.
What an extraordinary position we are in. Not only have we these forces to which I have made allusion, but we are also carrying on a policy of subsidising a potentate whose action may be> awkward for us in the centre of Arabia. I forget his name for the moment. I think it is Ibn Saud. He and others are getting from us no less a sum than £125,700. This will be found under Sub-head H, "Arabian Subsidies." On the one hand there is the King of the Hedjaz and, on the other hand, Iraq, and whichever way this Arab throws his influence, he is in a position to ask for more. Does he get it? If so, how is the payment made? Is he paid in notes or in gold?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In gold.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What an extraordinary position? In this country no one sees gold, but, apparently, this Arab Chief, in the centre of Arabia, can get as much as he wants within the limits of £100,000. Financiers would like to see once again a gold standard in this country. Apparently, there is one in the centre of Arabia, but not in London. I do urge on the Government the necessity for a reduction of expenditure, and a very substantial reduction, too. Here is a chance, I am certain, for going back on what has been a- gross mistake, which has cost the people of this country not a penny less than £100,000,000 during the last three or four years. Yesterday this House was engaged in discussing economy. Passionate speeches were made against a reduction of expenditure which entailed keeping children under five out of the schools of the country and which, also, entailed the cutting down of secondary education, thereby reducing our production of the most valuable assets of the country. We had Minister
after Minister at that Box—we had a whole range of Cabinet Ministers and I think we ought to mark the occasion down specially as a red-letter day—all saying how anxious they were to meet our criticisms but adding that we could not afford to forgo these particular economies. Yet the Government can apparently afford to pay out 125,000 gold sovereigns to chieftains in the centre of Arabia in the form of subsidies, while they cannot find the money necessary for education and other social services which are so important to our people—

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman we cannot have yesterday's Debate over again.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is only in the form of an echo.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And a very irrelevant echo.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It has now completed its reverberation. Here is an opportunity of saving millions of money: of turning back on an unhappy past and entering on a businesslike and prosperous future.

Captain COOTE: The right hon. Gentleman, in moving this reduction, has merely given us a repetition of what, to the best of my recollection, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said about a year ago on a similar occasion. I confess I disagree fundamentally with what is the practical proposal of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite have consistently advocated a policy of scuttle from Iraq on the very grounds which they deplore when they attack the Government policy elsewhere—on the ground of convenience and economy. No other consideration is allowed to weigh with them. The right hon. Member for Paisley, in his speech last year, spent considerable time in elaborating the thesis when is a pledge not a pledge. Breaking pledges is the kind of thing of which he repeatedly accuses the Government. But what does his own policy mean? He advocates the withdrawal of our sphere of activities to what is called Basra. Basra is the port of Traq, and if we strengthen our hold on Basra, what will the Arabs of Iraq say! They will say that we are establishing ourselves there with the sole object of throttling the development of their trade. Whether the
right hon. Gentleman is right or wrong in the facts he has brought forward, there can be no doubt that that is what the Arab will say if we do that.
The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) sees in this suggestion that some alteration should take place in our relations with Iraq a chance of carrying out this policy of evacuation. I do not think in carrying out a policy of evacuation we should be acting as honourable men. It seems to be established both in fact and sentiment that we owe a duty to the Arab population in the Middle East. At any rate, the Arabs in those regions are convinced that we do. They say you have failed us in Palestine and in Syria, but in Iraq you have a chance to implement your promises. I think there is a good deal of truth in that. How are we going to implement those promises? I do not know whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing on the supposition that we are not wanted in Iraq. If they are, I think they are wrong. I am informed from very credible sources that although the Arabs do desire some alteration in the status of their country they are not prepared to do without European assistance for some time to come. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to read into that desire of theirs rather unworthy motives. He seemed to think that they wanted to have our assistance at our cost and not to do anything for themselves. According to my information, they require this alteration in status, not merely for sentimental reasons, but for practical reasons. It is very difficult under present arrangements in Iraq for an Arab Government to make good.
The right hon. Gentleman, for example, mentioned the district of Kurdistan. The existence of South Kurdistan within the boundaries of Iraq is causing the greatest complication in that country. That particular district of South Kurdistan has always been included in what is technically known as Iraq, and apart from that the difficulty which the Arab Government has found in dealing with this part is that they are unable, under the present arrangements, because of the evil significance that the word mandate has in Iraq as a whole to make their influence felt in that country. I believe that if the status of the Arab Government were altered they would find it far more easy to come to terms with the Kurds of South
Kurdistan and to establish themselves on a sounder footing. There are some grounds for believing that if the alteration of status did take place the Kurds themselves would co-operate with the Government of Iraq whereas under present arrangements they are fair game for the intensive Turkish propaganda which is going on in their midst. There are other complications attached to this suggested alteration in the status of Iraq which will require the gravest consideration. There is first the repercussion on the position in Syria. I do not know whether we in this country are particularly concerned with that. The French, of course, will be afraid that if this alteration in status takes place they themselves may be faced with a similar demand in that part of the Arab world for which they are responsible. That is a matter for them to deal with upon what lines they think fit. The point for us to consider is whether it will be wise and whether it will be in accordance with our honourable obligations to carry out this change. I think it will.
I should like to say one word, before I leave that part of the subject, upon the grounds of economy. It will be easily seen that if this change does result in establishing the Government in Iraq upon a firmer basis, our responsibilities will be proportionately lessened in that country. It is well known that part, at any rate, of the great cost—I am not for one moment denying the great cost—of this responsibility to the British taxpayer is because the Government of Iraq cannot make its influence sufficiently felt throughout the country, and finds a great difficulty, not merely in Kurdistan, in the collection of the revenues and in the enlistment of an Arab gendarmerie in that country. I am sure that this alteration will make all these difficult tasks considerably easier; if it does, it will result in increased economy for the taxpayer of this country.
I pass from that to consider what will be the effect of this proposed alteration upon our responsibilities to the League of Nations. As I understand it, the mandate which we at present hold was given by the Supreme Council, and not by the League of Nations. Yet under that mandate there are direct responsibilities to the Council of the League. I cannot understand—the thing is said, not in this House, but outside—the attitude
of those who see in this proposed alteration some infringement of some duty which we owe to the League of Nations. As the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary reminded us at Question Time, the mandate does not give the mandatory Powers advantages. It imposes upon them responsibilities. In this proposed alteration, if we conclude a Treaty, all the requisite safeguards which the League of Nations demands from us in relation to our conduct in Iraq can be, and I think will be, inserted. It will be for this House, when the time comes for the Treaty to be laid before it, if it so desires and thinks fit, to insert provisions which will make our final responsibilities in regard to the League of Nations perfectly clear.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to enlist my hon. and gallant Friend as an ally, but is he aware that this House has no jurisdiction at all over Treaties unless there is legislation involved?

Captain COOTE: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend was in the House at Question Time, but I am now referring to an answer given by the Colonial Secretary that the Treaty would be laid before this House, and that, thereafter, it would be referred to the League of Nations. Anyhow, I believe it is so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Not always!

Captain COOTE: It is perfectly competent for us in this House to intimate to the Colonial Secretary what we think ought to be put into the Treaty. In regard to the League of Nations, the main points—as no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows—to consider are: firstly, an annual report, which we, as the mandatory Power, are bound to submit in regard to our administration to the League of Nations, There seems to me to be no earthly reason why the Government of Iraq in conjunction with their British advisers should not agree to submit such a report. The second main provision, so far as I remember, in the Covenant, is that equal trading facilities should be given in the country —that every mandatory State is to supply equal trade facilities to members of the League. Provision can very well be inserted in the Treaty to that effect.
There are also subsidiary provisions about arms and the liquor traffic, which would be even easier to insert. Therefore, my contention is, that under this proposed alteration in the status of Iraq, and of our position there, we should be fulfilling what, I assert in defiance of what has been said from the benches opposite, is an undoubted duty towards the people of that country. We should at once be fulfilling that duty and at the same time lessening the cost of that duty to the people of this country; also we should be doing that which the people of Iraq most ardently desire. Whether we like it or not, in this country to-day and all over the world there is a disease, a poison as I think it, called nationalism which has run through the nations like fire. The problem for statesmanship, as I see it to-day, is to get to that point at which one can reconcile what that spirit of nationalism demands with what it is safe and proper should be done for the peoples among whom it is preached. Therefore I want to urge upon the Colonial Secretary the one broad fact that the suggested alteration in the status of Iraq is in full accord with the policy which he announced when he took over the responsibility of these regions some considerable time ago. The right hon. Gentleman then laid it down that we had a duty towards the people of that country, a duty which it is very difficult to disentangle from the many duties which our war pledges have imposed upon us, and which we should make a sincere and honest endeavour to fulfil. I do suggest to the House that before we listen to the somewhat traditional and somewhat stereotyped argument which came from the opposite benches, urging us to get out and secure at all events, economy, that we should, in the spirit expressed by the Colonial Secretary when he took over the responsibility for these regions, make an honest attempt to fulfil our duty in accordance with the wishes of these native Arabs whom we have encouraged to hope will be allowed to make a success of their own Government in their own way. We should take this step and this Government should give them a fair chance so to do.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am always interested in these differences between the two wings of the Liberal party—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, no I Not a separate party!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot understand on this occasion why the Coalition Liberals and the Free Liberals are not agreed. They are advocating precisely the same policy. First of all the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) and my colleague the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) were advocating a policy of scuttle.

Captain COOTE: Nothing of the sort!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the real facts of the ease are becoming too strong for the two sections of the Liberal party.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There are not two factions!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the difference is such that there seems no possibility of bridging it over, or having a common policy in Iraq, which is very regrettable. At the same time the facts of the case suggest that what some people call a policy of scuttle and other people call the far-sighted policy of Imperial expansion are at the present time one and the same thing. The Colonial Office is in the difficult position of having to adjust their minds to the new situation that has been put before the Committee. King Feisal, our very good friend, is very anxious to be able to control his country, and he can only control it if he is allowed to say that he is an independent monarch, which is more or less a matter of form and very little else. In order, however, that he may satisfactorily carry on, without enormous expense to the British taxpayer, he wants to be called an independent monarch. So far as I am concerned it seems to me that this adjustment that he should call himself an, independent monarch if he wants to, is well-advised from our point of view. In either case when difficulties arise he will be either, by virtue of his Treaty, or some more cogent reasons, depending upon the British taxpayer and the British Government just as is King Hussein, who gets the 60,000 golden sovereigns given to him yearly.
One cannot possibly discuss this question of Iraq even to-day without realising that the problem really is one not so much of England and Iraq as of England and the Turkish Power. There is the whole difficulty. The Turkish pressure upon
Southern Kurdistan and Bagdad is the principal reason why King Feisal, as I believe—we have not had that officially from the Government yet—would prefer independence to the Treaty or Mandate if it gives him a stronger position to argue with Moslem propaganda. Really, we have got to understand that Iraq at the present moment is merely the scene of the struggle which is going on all over the East to-day between the Moslem Powers and ourselves. I myself think that whilst the policy of the Government is perfectly right in connection with Palestine, that it would be desirable that they should know by whom this change, apparently adopting a policy of scuttle— if you like to call it so—is made. It will enable us to stand behind King Feisal when pressure is brought to bear upon him. It will strengthen his position in relation to his own subjects, and technically strengthen the position of the British taxpayer by removing a large part of that which falls upon us at the present time. I do not want to close my speech, which I desire to be brief and is delivered in order to explain our point of view, without asking the Colonial Secretary to take the opportunity to-day, either on this or the next Vote, to reply to that long Debate we had on Colonial policy this day week. On the next Vote it will be perfectly proper to reply. I do not remember a case before where there has been a long Debate and no reply from the Department concerned in the subjects raised in the Debate. I hope, therefore, on this or the next Vote the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the problem of Kenya, Rhodesia, and the West Coast.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MOSLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down appeared to take the view that, provided the British taxpayer pays, it does not so very much matter whether we are interested in keeping Iraq or whether King Feisal be recognised as an independent monarch with English support. I venture, even with this case before us, to suggest that there are advantages in favour of the mandatory system which are not to be found in the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated at Question Time to-day. For instance, my hon. and gallant Friend, who spent some time and much labour in explaining exactly how this new proposal could be brought within the ambit of the provisions of the League
of Nations' Covenant. It is a difficulty, and he discovered that difficulty for the reason that there is no stipulation within the Covenant of the League of Nations in regard to any condition of this kind.

Captain COOTE: There is no stipulation against it.

Mr. MOSLEY: Quite. But the League of Nations' Covenant does not contemplate any transitional period between a mandatory position, and a position of complete independence. Therefore, in order to bring this proposal into practice, we have either to amend the League of Nations Covenant, or to introduce a system which is not contemplated in that Covenant at all. There must be one very evident result of such departure from the strict letter of the Covenant. In the first place, it is always bad immediately to interfere with a new machine which has hardly got into running order. At once it gives all its opponents an opportunity to say, "You see, this machinery cannot function. Already it has been altered and amended." But there is a greater objection than that. Already our Mandate in Iraq has been subjected to very grave suspicion all over the world, quite wrongly, as I believe. There is a large section of American opinion, and a large section of French opinion, which believe that this country is interested in the affairs of Iraq, not so much because it is inspired by the sacred trust of civilisation, as by the desire to work some devious oil concessions. I believe that conception to be entirely unfounded. But a departure from the letter of the Covenant, a new departure such as this, must at once give a great impetus to all the suspicions and doubts which are animating these other people. At once a large section of opinion will say, "You could not get what you wanted under the mandatory system; its provisions are drawn too tightly. And so you have to constitute a new system, which is not contemplated at all under the Covenant of the League of Nations, in order to further your nefarious designs." We know such suspicions to be entirely unfounded and foolish, but what is the object of giving further ground to such suspicion as exists already, unless very substantial advantages to this country and the mandated territory are to be derived from the change?
I submit that there are certain disadvantages likely to accrue from this new constitution which should, at any rate, be counterbalanced by some very substantial improvement in the prospects of administering that territory, and also in alleviating the burden of the English taxpayer. But what advantages do we get out of it? The only way in which this alteration affects us is that we surrender a large measure of our authority. Apparently, we are to transfer the entire functions of government to the Arab administration, and, at the same time, we retain all those responsibilities with which we were originally shackled. We retain, in fact, every disadvantage of the mandatory system, and we have none of its advantages. The right hon. Gentleman so far has not defined the exact relationship which is to exist between the English Officer Commanding in Iraq and the Arab administration. That, surely, must be a very delicate definition. He has not in any way foreshadowed the delicate position of our advisers. But it certainly appears from the Press accounts which have emanated, presumably, from official circles, that we are, in fact contemplating the constitution in Iraq of a form of government largely analogous to that which has prevailed so long in Egypt—a not altogether very desirable form of government— constituting another Egyptian problem in a part of the world where there are no essential interests of England concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) spoke once again of the great obligations under which we labour to the Arabian population. We have heard much of those obligations, but I have listened to every Debate of the last three years on this subject in the House, and I have never yet heard those obligations defined, and I have yet to learn why we are under any obligation to remain for an indefinite period in Iraq, beyond our promise to constitute an independent Arab State. Surely we are not expected, having constituted that State, to bolster it up for ever with English arms and money if it be incompetent to function? Surely, having constituted that State, we are then at liberty to withdraw, and to allow it to proceed in its independence?
Be that as it may, it is old history and an old controversy. An entirely new situation has now arisen. The Arabs now come forward and say, "We do not like
your Government." They have given us evidences of that before in the rebellion which they instigated and raised against our rule. But their duly accredited leaders now come forward and say that they do not like the English mandate, and they object to the form of rule which we have constituted under the League of Nations. Whatever obligations ever existed in that country surely have been entirely dissipated by this new demand for independence and freedom from the English yoke. If ever there were an obligation, it surely has been destroyed by this new demand. It is quite true that King Feisal admits that this new independence, this Arab State which is to be free from the shackles of any outside interference, is to be bolstered up, maintained and assured by English arms, men and money. How long are we really going to undertake this duty all over the world in regions where there are no material English interests concerned, of preserving independence and the internal order of other people, by the money of the English taxpayer and the men who have to be dispatched to these far-off lands? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the catastrophe which would result from a very probable outbreak of disorder in Iraq, in the event of our evacuation, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman spoke with his accustomed accuracy from official information. But even if there were to be a grave outbreak of disorder in Iraq from our withdrawal from that country, is it not better that there should be disorder among the nomadic tribes of that country than the possibility of disorder in the streets of the cities of this country? After all, this great taxation, which is weighing down industry and oppressing the industrial situation in this country, which has resulted in nearly two million unemployed men walking the streets of this country, surely there is a graver fear of disorder in the very heart of our Empire, and a graver danger to the whole structure and fabric of that Empire, from the burden of taxation than through the possibility of disorder in a remote country?
Hon. Gentlemen who seek to commit this country to the maintenance of these remote Imperial responsibilities—for that is what it amounts to—are violating not only in its entirety the new conceptions, of world affairs which have
emanated from the War, but they are also violating every tradition of sound Imperial strategy, which has devolved upon us even from the days of the Roman Caesars. In successful Imperial government, in times of strain and stress, when a great and virile people are emaciated as the result of prolonged war, it has always been the policy of wise rulers to retire from outlying places and consolidate their forces, and thus to build up their strength, and, if the occasion arises, in accordance with the spirit of those days, once again to fling their forces over the wider area. We have passed very far from those times, but, even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen who see these great obligations of preserving order all over the world, surely it is wise at such a time not to endanger and jeopardise the whole fabric and structure of Empire by piling these great burdens upon that structure? Surely it is better to consolidate our remaining forces and resources, and so to recover our strength. Under existing circumstances, when these people repudiate our rule and want to be rid of us, seriously to ask the people of this country to go on supplying men and money for the maintenance of order amongst people who do not want it, is something which approaches very nearly to an outrage upon the feelings of the taxpayers of this country, who too long have been struggling to meet the burdens of your commitments.

Captain ELLIOT: It is difficult to follow the tortuous workings of the mind of the hon. Member opposite, but, so far as I understand, he was of opinion that anything that we were asked to do as the mandatory of the League of Nations it was incumbent upon this country to do, but that if the unfortunate Arabs asked to be allowed to deal directly with the people, to whom their destinies have been entrusted, rather than through the medium of the secretariat of the bureaux on the shores of Lake Constance, no punishment could be too great for them, and nothing his eloquence could urge would be too serious for him to demand that we should inflict as a punishment upon those audacious Allies of ours. It is a little disproportionate that these measures of denunciation should be hurled at the head of a gallant ally of ours in the War, simply because he has suggested, as I understand, that
the obligation of this country under the mandate has been terminated, and that he is anxious—for this is the essence of his position—to continue the co-operation of this country which has been, in his opinion, of great benefit to him in the past.
If he considers, as he does consider, that the maintenance of the word "mandate" will involve him in difficulties with his own people, surely that is a matter rather for the Iraqians to arrange with their ruler than for us to interfere in. If King Feisal finds, as he claims to have found, that his whole problem of Government would be gravely prejudiced by the suspicion amongst his people that he is merely the puppet of some Western gang, some group of Allies such as the victors in the late War—{HON. MEM- BEES: "Gang!"] well, I have no objection to the word "gang" at all. The idea of a gang of robbers is certainly a nobler and better idea than the idea of a gang of conspirators, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) would commit this House, seconded by the eloquent efforts of the hon. Member for Harrow. That we should retain the country as a mandatory under the League of Nations, or that we should scuttle from it, is surely better than the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, which, as far as I could understand it, was that we should partition up this unhappy country of Iraq, proceed to tear up all our pledges, and seize the only valuable part of the country, namely, the port of Basra. Then, by a masterpiece of cynicism, the hon. Member for Harrow suggested that, having consolidated our position there, we should at some future time, when our strength had grown again, when we had once more refilled our magazines with ammunition and our battalions with fresh soldiers, sally out from this fortress and proceed to reconquer the unhappy country from its unfortunate inhabitants. If I have misrepresented the hon. Member I shall be glad to be corrected, but that is the logical consequence of what he said.

Mr. MOSLEY: That is not my policy. I was merely suggesting it as a wise policy for any crank Imperialist who happened to listen to it.

Captain ELLIOT: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley would be delighted to hear himself described as a "crank Imperialist" by his latest recruit, the hon. Member for Harrow. These recriminations between Members of the same party, sitting, not on different sides of the House, but on the same side, are very painful to those of us who belong to the great and united party which has so long and honourably been entrusted with the destinies of this country. I suggest that they maintain their domestic differences for their own consumption in the recesses of Abingdon Street, or some other place from which the rumours of their quarrels will emerge—
The old, unhappy far-off things and battles long ago.
I must apologise for having been diverted from the line of my argument, which was simply to the effect that the Arabs are asking for an alteration in their present status, and that there is nothing in international law, or in the interests of this country, in any way to be injuriously affected by the alteration for which they ask. To say that we cannot touch the Mandate because the alteration was not contemplated when the Covenant of the League of Nations was drawn up, is to run a grave risk of concluding that men were made for Mandate? and not Mandates for men. The original conception of a Mandate was a means by which the civilised West could help the undeveloped East, and if the undeveloped East says to us that the form in which we propose to help it is not acceptable to it, but that it still desires our help, then it seems to me that it is for this country to examine the problem honourably and sincerely, not merely with its eye on the next pocketful of sovereigns that it may desire to spend in unemployment donations here, but to look far afield to the greater interests of this country in its whole relationship with the world of Islam. It is essentially necessary that this country should consider the matter with an open mind, and should say, "We believe that the Mandate was in the best interests of Iraq. We entered upon it to fetter ourselves, and not to fetter you. But if you think you would prefer some other status, then we desire honourably and faithfully to co-operate with you, and not to subjugate you. We honestly desire the interests of your
country more than the oppression of your country, and we are willing to go before the League of Nations and work out side by side, England and Iraq, a status which shall be of use to both countries and injurious to neither."
There is no more deadly danger before us just now than that of refusing to enter upon new departures because, as the hon. Member for Harrow said, the mandatory machinery is new, and it would be a pity to tamper with it at the moment. But Iraq has this fear as to the mandatory system, and it may go further to wreck the belief of this country in the mandatory system than any minor alterations in paper and ink that we may make at Geneva. I beg the Colonial Secretary to consider favourably, as I understand from his reply to-day that he is doing, the request of the Arabs for an alteration in status, believing, as I do, that we stand at a fork in the roads as regards the relations between this country and Islam. We have a chance of proving our bona fides, and of doing something which though it may be distasteful to us, is acceptable to the great Moslem world. We have seen it on several occasions in the past. Perhaps the most recent instance is the little Moslem State of Albania, which the Peace settlement suggested should be given as a mandated State to Italy. We have seen that little State reject, in arms, the tutelage which it was then proposed to impose upon it. It has established itself as an independent State, and has turned its face definitely from Turkey and towards the West. It has definitely begun to co-operate with the West. No field for Turkish propaganda is open there, as is the case in Southern Kurdistan, because the people of the country have realised that their own affairs are in their own hands.
It is not merely, as the hon. Member who voiced the views of the Labour party said, a matter of words whether a State is called independent or not. It is not true, as he says, and as his party so constantly reiterate, that the command of money and the command of the sea are so important that the spirits of men are entirely dominated by them, and it does not matter whether they are called independent or not. That is a familiar fallacy upon which his party has been wrecked time and again, and upon which it will be wrecked now. As a recent recruit to it, he is, of course, not
acquainted with the way in which that economic fallacy has been repeatedly refuted throughout history, but he will learn. When I was a member of that party I learned those things, and consequently left it. No doubt the hon. Member will learn in time, even as I have done, and will come to anchor somewhere in the soft recesses of the Coalition. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the command of the sea which Italy held, and the economic resources which Italy held, were not sufficient completely to dominate the Albanians. They desired their independence and seized it. The command of the sea, even if the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, of the addition of the port of Basra to the great dominions of this country, were adopted, would not be sufficient completely to dominate the Arab world even of Iraq, and still less the world of Islam as a whole.
I do beg the Colonial Secretary to see whether it is not possible now, or within the next week, for us to enter upon a new stage of co-operation with Islam, to give them by a great gesture the belief that we in this country, when we have our hands free, as we have not now, in Palestine or in Syria, desire the success and not the ruin of that great system at once of politics and of theology. We have this chance now, and I think that even now, if the right hon. Gentleman could make some declaration of sympathy, he would do more good to the Empire as a whole, and to the Middle Eastern Empire in particular, than by any declaration that even he has been able to make, with all the great facilities and advantages he has possessed during his enormously useful tenure of office as Colonial Secretary.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The nautical simile of the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) reminded me of the young naval chaplain who said, "Do not let us anchor in the shifting sands; let us anchor on the hard and unyielding rock." The hon. and gallant Member has anchored in the soft havens of the Coalition, but he will find that his anchor will drag very rapidly, or that, when he comes to weigh anchor, he will not be able to lift it. The hon. and gallant Member is a fellow Fabian of mine, and I am surprised to hear that he has also been a Liberal.

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. and gallant Member is a Socialist.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not mind these accusations.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought you gloried in them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is the definition of a Socialist. We know already that it includes a Bolshevist.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and gallant Friend are former Members of the same party, and both have been accused of being Socialists, so they need not worry. I should like to raise a question that has not yet been touched upon in this Debate, although in every previous Debate to which, like the hon. Member for Harrow, I have listened, and in which, I believe, I have taken part, it has come up. On this occasion, so far, there has been a restrained silence in regard to it. May I inquire of the right hon. Gentleman what is the position with regard to oil exploitation in Iraq? I make no excuse for raising this topic, because one of the reasons that were given to the House by the Prime Minister when he was defending the enormous expenditure in previous years on Iraq was that there were very productive oilfields in that country which would immensely enrich the British Empire. If we can develop oilfields by legitimate means through private enterprise abroad no one will be more pleased than myself, but I gather that we should have had a much better chance of getting what oil there was in Iraq if there had not been a British soldier in the whole country. I have that from people who have been extremely successful in developing oil in other parts of the world. I asked a question earlier this Session of the Colonial Secretary as to the results of the explorations for oil in Iraq and they were given to me as precisely nothing at all. Although we have been in that country now, including our occupation during, the War, for something like four or five years, no oil has yet been discovered. I am one of those who, with regard to Iraq, quite plainly advocate the so-called policy of scuttle. I want to clear out of that country, and as long as we are spending £100,000 on the country,
and as long as I am a Member of this House, or outside if I am not a Member, I intend to protest against the expenditure of any money at all in maintaining ourselves or in maintaining our dupes in that country.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Who are the dupes?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The people whom we prop up in that country —the rulers whom we put up by arranging the elections. If they are at all able to stand by themselves, we have no business there at all. I do not, however, want to go into that at the moment. I am inquiring about the oil prospects, which are very interesting, and I also want to know whether we have finally come to an arrangement and a sympathetic understanding with the Government of the Republic of the United States about this question. It was one of the questions which was agitating that country, and the most important thing in the world to-day that lies before anyone in office in this country is to work for better relations with the United States. This was one of the causes of friction. I understand there was also some difficulty about the rights of the Standard Oil Company in Palestine, and I hope that has been settled satisfactorily as well. If we attempt, because of our position in Iraq, to give exceptional facilities and to favour the British or any allied country as against the interests of other countries we are going right against the spirit of the mandate. On the other hand, if we clear out of that country, as the present or the succeeding Government will be forced to do by public pressure, I am assured on good authority that satisfactory arrangements could be made with the local inhabitants to develop the oil fields of that country, as we are doing in South Persia with most satisfactory results, for which I admit that we have very largely to thank the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote when he was a Liberal Minister. The answer to that will be that if we clear out, the Turks will come in within a week. I do not believe that is so. I believe it will be perfectly feasible to make a treaty with Turkey, which the Turks would keep, by which they would permit the Arabs to work out their own form of government.
I have discussed this matter with very high Turkish officials and members of the present Government when they were over here, and with other very important Turks, and I believe they were expressing the fixed resolve of the new Turkey which has risen on the ashes of the old, and which I believe will become a rejuvenated, healthy and progressive nation, that they do not wish longer to interfere with their Arab neighbours. The most far-seeing Turks to-day—and those are the men in power—realise that they have dissipated their strength in the past in the Yemen, Mesopotamia and the Hedjaz, and they are only willing to remain within their ethnographical limits and develop their own country. If we show ourselves prepared to work on friendly terms with Turkey I believe they will meet us with regard to Iraq and that bogey can be disposed of.
There is another matter I should like to ask information about. The question of the subsidies to Ibn Saud and other Arab potentates has been fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I only want to second what he has said. The thing is perfectly absurd. The policy of shovelling golden sovereigns into the itching palms of these gentry is the maddest policy I ever heard of. Is it true that these golden sovereigns are being used for importing arms, and is the very old established gun running trade, which was put down at great cost and with the very arduous service of our Navy in the years before the War, in full swing again, and are certain Continental gentlemen who served in the Latin countries-—-I will not put it any nearer—reaping a very rich harvest by selling arms to these people? Is there any truth in the reports in the Continental Press and in this country that a secret treaty has been signed between the Quai d'Orsai and Ibn Saud for support in case of trouble with the French in Syria, or even trouble with other countries? Is there any truth in the report of French political agents being at the Court of Ibn Saud, and, if so, did they go there with our knowledge, and what exactly is the position? These statements have appeared in the papers here, but is there any foundation at all for this intriguing with Ibn Saud. In other words, can we rely on this gentle-
man's integrity. Ibn Saud seems to distrust the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman appears to distrust Ibn Saud, They may both be justified. I do not know. But what is the report of the political officers? The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) referred to broken pledges. It is the height of impertinence for Coalition Liberals, or any Coalition supporters, to take about pledges. What ridiculous nonsense. If ever we gave solemn pledges to any country, it was to a country not far from Mesopotamia, namely, the Armenians. Have any of them ever protested against the breaking of our pledges there? We gave the most solemn pledges to Turkey pledges. These are countries which impinge on the territory over which the right hon. Gentleman holds uneasy sway. But what about pledges nearer home? The last thing any supporter of the Government-should speak about is broken pledges. The only sensible policy is to carry out the real pledge that we made, that we had only gone to their country to free them from the rule of Turkey. Having done that, we should clear out of the country and allow them to work out their own salvation.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is not the Paisley policy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) says we must stay at Basra, I am sure he has very good reasons. He has much more experience and knowledge than I have. At any rate, I should like to discuss the matter with him, which I have not yet had an opportunity of doing. The extraordinary thing is that it was the settled policy of this country, and I think a very clever policy, before the War—I wish it had been more successful—to encourage Germany to become involved in this waste of Mesopotamia. The Foreign Office deliberately encouraged the Germans to push on their railway to the Persian Gulf, and gave them every facility to get into Mesopotamia, which would keep them so busy that they would have no money and no force to spare for troubles in Europe.

The CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that that policy should now be repeated, he is not in order in referring to it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was saying it wag a policy which I think was a wise one, to involve the Germans in Mesopotamia so that they would not be able to do mischief elsewhere. We are also involving ourselves in Iraq, and although I do not believe this country deliberately makes mischief, at any rate in Europe, we shall so involve ourselves and spend so much money that we shall have to cut down our social services at home and starve other legitimate possessions, such as the rich and fertile territories of Africa, which are crying out for development. We have a Bill just now for stimulating cotton growing. For heaven's sake, let us find money for something productive like that if you must spend money outside these islands.

Mr. SUGDEN: We do not want your money for that.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Colonists do at ay rate. They are asking for money for transport, for har-hours, for Imperial development, which will probably repay itself many times over.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot suggest any other alternative way in which this £9,000,000 can be spent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have one last comment to make on the question of Preference. After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, which I was not here to support—I should have voted with the Government with the greatest pleasure if I had been—I should like to ask him whether Preference is going to be extended again next year to these mandated territories, such as Iraq.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is anticipating the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer somewhere about May next.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I shall have to keep my remarks until then. I am sorry, because I should like to have heard the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Here we are asking for this enormous sum of money. It is nearly £11,000,000, taking into account parallel expenditure by other Departments. We cannot afford it. We must protest against it. We must go on protesting, both in the House and outside. It is absolutely wrong; it is
only doing us harm; it is not popular in India. The Age Khan, whose patriotism and devotion cannot be challenged, has told us very plainly how unpopular is the use of Indian troops in territories outside India. It is certainly most unpopular in the country. I am certain it is unpopular amongst the merchants of Dundee. I have challenged the right hon. Gentleman to stand an election at Dundee on the question. Perhaps the opportunity will come soon. The whole Iraq venture is extremely unpopular among all classes of the country. Lastly, it appears to be very unpopular amongst the great mass of the Mesopotamians themselves. A few Sheri-fians who have been brought in to fill a few posts want us to stay, and there may be a few Bagdadibureaucrats who want us to stay. But all the evidence I can get from Sir William Wilcox and people of that sort is that the average up-country Arab will not tolerate any rule but their own and wish to see our backs. That being the case, the last people to uphold this adventure are the right hon. Gentleman and a few henchmen he has gathered round him. Thank goodness, we turned from the Mecca adventure, the most ridiculous adventure ever suggested, in time. We have done enough harm in the world of Islam already. The idea that British trade will be fostered by a garrison there is absurd. We do our finest trade to-day in countries where there is not a single British soldier, like Mexico. We can develop the oilfields, to which we have some right by pre-War concessions and so on, without any military assistance, and the only reason I can see for maintaining this enormous expenditure in Iraq is to satisfy the amour propre of the Government and to satisfy these few pan-Arab enthusiasts. The idea of breaking pledges is absolutely wrong. Our only pledge was to allow the Arabs to govern themselves, and the sooner we clear out and let them get to work on that great experiment the better.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who so often addresses us has on this occasion treated us to a considerable exhibition of his curious internal state of mind. At first sight it seemed to be a very simplex point of view. He summed it up in a single word, "scuttle." That was the policy which the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommended, which he had always recommended, which he
would always recommend, for the British Empire to pursue in its affairs all over the world, in peace or in war. A very simple policy! Probably it would save a lot of trouble. Once you get your faith firmly founded on some broad all-embracing, comprehensive principle of that kind, you are not easily exposed to the need of making any great tax upon your mental powers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or upon the Exchequer.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a very peculiar exception to this universal policy. "Scuttle" was the word for all parts of the world, but not in regard to Basra. There, there was to be a halt. This universal self-effacement which the British Empire is to pursue on all occasions encountered an absolute exception at Basra. What was the reason which he gave for excepting Basra from this general policy of scuttle? It was a most remarkable reason. He said that his leader, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was in favour of remaining at Basra, although his leader had not condescended to explain to him any reason why we should stay at Basra, when all the rest had been given up. Nevertheless, in spite of this lack of consideration, in spite of this lack of ordinary courtesy which one would expect to be shown to a follower of such distinction, by a leader in the circumstances in which that leader is placed, such is the submissive faith of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, usually so truculent, that, without either word or question, without even caring to know what are the reasons, he immediately accepts the policy of holding on to Basra, at all costs, whilst advocating in all other matters the policy of scuttle.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member must sometimes listen as well as speak.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to be misrepresented.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only hope that when the political transformation to which the hon. and gallant Member and his Friends are looking forward with so much hope and eagerness takes place, this signal
act of submission and abasement which he has performed publicly this afternoon will not be forgotten by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All I said was that I had heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to our staying at Basra, but that he had not discussed the matter with me; that he had not heard my reasons, and until that time occurred I was prepared to follow him in that policy.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Then I can only hope that any outstanding differences may be speedily cleared up, and that a full understanding may be established between a leader and a follower who shows such admirable fidelity, and makes such public protestations of it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish you the same.

Mr. CHURCHILL: After this, I hope the Committee will permit me to leave the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and turn to some matters of substance. I am afraid it is impossible for the Committee to ask me this afternoon to re-open and resume the main question, whether we ought or ought not immediately to give orders for the complete evacuation of Iraq. We discussed this matter for a full afternoon earlier in the Session. I made a full statement of our position, which took an unconscionable time, and the House accepted it by an overwhelming majority, and, really, without any serious challenge of the policy which I then outlined. It was certainly not a very ambitious or alarming policy. I pointed out how much we had spent in the past upon Iraq and Kurdistan. I pointed out how very great were the sacrifices we had made, and the losses we had sustained in this part of the world. I pointed out how rapid was the diminution in the cost, and that on the whole the tranquilisation was proceeding effectively. I then showed that the forecast for the future was likely to be increasingly favourable. While I could give no guarantees, I said that I thought it was possible that the expense for next year will be less than this year. I submitted to the House the view that it might well be that, when we had spent over £100,000,000, and when perhaps
the expenditure of a tenth of that amount, spread over a few years, might bring our policy to success, it was worth while persevering over such part of the road as yet remains to be trod, rather than to cast away whatever sacrifice we have made in the past, and doing that fruitlessly, to exhibit ourselves before the nations of the world as a nation which has undertaken a Mandate which we are unable to fulfil, and to create in a country for which we have undertaken responsibility, conditions which would be little short of actual anarchy. When we compare these two situations, the past and the future, the past with its great losses, the future with its, I think I may say, increasing hopes, it would be an act of enormous self-stultification if the Committee were now to decide, incontinently, without regard to circumstances, without regard to commitments, pledges, or undertakings of any kind, to order the immediate evacuation of Iraq.
That being the view which Parliament took only two-and-a-half months ago, I cannot undertake to re-state and reargue in detail the whole case for the immediate and total evacuation of Iraq. Nor was that the question which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in his speech to-day. First of all, he dealt with various financial questions, and he applied his scrutiny to the Estimates now before the Committee. In the first place, he complained of the form in which the Estimates are presented. I think that is an unmerited complaint. Let us look into the past history of this subject. No individual Minister was responsible for the expenditure in Mesopotamia up to the year 1921. Palestine and Mesopotamia were then administered by the Foreign Office and India Office respectively, and were kept in order by the War Office. No individual Minister could be made accountable for the cost of those countries, which, at that time, was gigantic, terrible and crushing, and which was spread over two or three different Departments, the bulk of it falling upon the War Office. The War Office, which spent the greatest part of the money, had absolutely no control of any sort over the policy which led to that expenditure.
I am responsible for having urged most strongly the concentration of the whole expense of the Middle East under one head, and placing that burden upon the back of one unfortunate Minister. I did not know at the time that I advocated it that I should be that Minister. To say that this is not in accordance with what Parliament should require that it does not minister to the effective control of the House of Commons over expenditure, and that it does not subject the expense of these territories to the full glare of public criticism and scrutiny is absolutely absurd. I have always predicted that you would never get reduction in expense on these matters until one Minister had to stand up here and face the whole unpopularity that there was in the country, and the prejudice against it. That is the greatest incentive you can have to reduction of the expenditure, and my words have been borne out by what has occurred. It is because of that incentive that we have succeeded in effecting gigantic economies. Search the whole range of British expenditure at the present time, the thousand millions of expenditure, and you will not find anything comparable in degree with the reduction that has been achieved in this field.
6.0 P.M.
The right hon. Member for Peebles turned a searchlight of his gaze upon the tables of the Estimates, and on page 56 he detected an item of £900 increase in the expenditure upon the staff of the Middle Eastern Department at the Colonial Office. He spoke for five minutes on the subject. He referred to the ever growing bureaucracy, and to mushroom departments growing up. When you consider the enormous mass of expenditure which was flowing out for Iraq and Palestine at the time that they were handed over to the Colonial Office—at that time the expenditure amounted to £35,000,000 a year—it seems to me that a sum of £8,000 a year was a very small charge to make for the additional secretariat necessary to enable the Colonial Office to undertake the super-control of the whole of that vast district. To grudge a sum of that kind for the management of a business of that size would pass the limit of frugality, would pass the furthest bounds of parsimony, and would become sheer niggardliness. I question whether there is any Department that has been administered with a smaller expenditure
on headquarters staff than has been the case here. This matter is so much in the mind of my right hon. Friend, and is causing him so much anxiety, that I am going to draw the attention of the Committee to his curious sense of proportion. We have increased the expenditure in this case by £900. We have increased it by £900 this year because it was desired to have a rather stricter financial control, and two subordinates have been added to assist the Finance Officer who deals with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman seems to grudge an increase of £900 to the finance staff of the Department when in the same year in which this increase is made there is a reduction of £18,500,000. That is the sense of proportion of my right hon. Friend. £900 is added, but he might have looked through the Estimates for a week and never noticed the decrease of £18,500,000. I am bound to say that I think it is very much to be regretted that in giving a general review of the finances of the country my right hon. Friend could not set these two amounts in their proper relation, but just mentioned casually in passing the reduction of £18,500,000 which, after all, is the central figure of these Estimates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I mentioned it at least twice.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is perfectly true that my right hon. Friend, who is an old Parliamentarian, made one or two guarded observations without attracting attention inside the House, and which certainly are not likely to attract the slightest attention outside, but which enable him to say what he said just now, when he is reproached for ignoring, suppressing, avoiding, smothering and endeavouring to conceal the main feature of these Estimates. However, let me relieve him on the subject of this £900. I do not wish to rub in the £18,000,000 too much. I hope that the £900 will be reduced very largely in the present year, and will disappear completely next year, because, I am sorry to say, that I have not been able to persuade Colonel Lawrence to accept any longer the salary of £l,000 a year, which hitherto he has been drawing. He has written that he considers the state of affairs in Palestine and Iraq to be now so prosperous and in the future likely to be so calm, that he would not feel justified in drawing any
salary, but that he will still give me his services in an honorary capacity whenever they are required. Therefore, if next year we are discussing the same question, and if my right hon. Friend is sitting up half the night studying these Estimates, his mind will be able to fix itself clearly and uninterruptedly upon the larger figure of reductions which has been achieved, without being diverted and distracted from it by this increase of £900.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the armies that were being employed in Iraq, and, of course, I have never concealed from the House that there are some elements in this Iraq situation which lend themselves, if approached in a spirit of levity, to humorous treatment, and no doubt the idea of an Arab Army, an Imperial Army and an army of levies, all co-existing together in the service of one State, differently paid, and variously controlled and commanded, does lend itself to humour and even to ridicule, but the only defence which I can plead is, that I think that on the whole we are getting on very well. I have never given any guarantee that we shall be able to succeed. On the contrary, I have repeatedly warned the House that the means at my disposal were so small, and the dangers and difficulties were so enormous, that we might well fail, but, as a fact, we have not failed up to the present. We have succeeded beyond all hope. These three armies, with the Air Force, do, I believe, constitute as good an arrangement for the purpose of preserving internal peace and defending the frontier as it is within our power to make at the present time.
It is very remarkable that, during the last year or year and a half, not a single Imperial soldier has been killed in Palestine or Iraq proper. I exclude three or four who have been killed in Kurdistan, but, so far as Iraq proper and Palestine are concerned, not only have we this colossal reduction of the expenditure from £35,000,000 to £27,000,000 and from £27,000,000 to £10,000,000, but the great reduction which, of course, has been secured by the vast expulsion of troops, the sending home and the disbandment of troops of all kinds, has been attained in a period in which no one representative of Imperial authority has lost his life. I cannot guarantee what may take place in all circumstances, but if we continue
to prosper as we have hitherto done the expense in these countries instead of being £10,000,000, as it is this year, next year will be something like £5,000,000, and there will be a further reduction the year after that. Of course, if it is the wish of the House that we should evacuate these territories that is another matter, but to those who have committed themselves to an effort being made by us to fulfil our obligations, I do think that a reduction of expenditure on that scale should make an appeal.
Of course, there is a certain amount of expenditure proceeding in regard to the accommodation which must be provided for the other forces which we are employing to assist the native Government of Iraq. As I have explained, the work is mainly done by the Air Force, and the Air Force required some shelter from the tropical heat of the sun, and some reasonably permanent quarters. Every economy has been practised in building these places, and towards the end of the present year they will be complete.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What about the quarters of the High Commissioner's staff?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The principal expense this year is the completion of the quarters of the Air Force at a loop of the river Tigris where they will be perfectly safe, and from whence their control can be exercised over the whole country. If the right hon. Gentleman deplores that item of expenditure, as no doubt he may, he must remember that it is an integral part of the policy by which all these enormous savings have been achieved, and that without it it would not have been possible for us to have held and remained in control of the country, at any rate without gigantic military expenditure. So far as the expenditure on the house of the High Commissioner is concerned, if you ask a distinguished man, like Sir Percy Cox, of very great gifts for this particular kind of work, at his age, to use the whole of his unique influence and experience in guiding this policy, which so far has been very successful, the least you can do is to provide a reasonable habitation in. which he can dwell. May I point out that however large may be the diminution in your expenditure and responsibility in future in Iraq, however few may be the
troops or officials you may need there, you will certainly need to have at the head of your administration an ambassador or plenipotentiary or High Commissioner, and the more you withdraw your military forces the more you will need to have a person of great influence in a position befitting the dignity of a Mandatory Power and able to give advice and counsel to the native ruler and the native Government, and in any event this item has to be considered in connection with the vast diminution of expenditure which is the feature of all these Estimates.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the subsidy to Ibn Saud, and I sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in his difficulty in pronouncing this name. I made a mistake in saying the British subsidy was paid in gold. It is not paid in gold. It is paid in Indian silver rupees, but I think that the passage in his peroration, in which my right hon. Friend spoke about-golden sovereigns pouring into the golden sands of Arabia, might, with very little alteration, be made to fit equally well the case of the silver rupee. But the alteration, no doubt, does not affect his flight. I would like to say a word or two about the new Treaty which we are on the point of making with King Feisal. An extraordinary prejudice has grown up throughout the East against the word "mandate," as if it implied some kind of servitude or abrogation of their State, into which they are thrust and in which they are to be held through the agency of some baleful body called the League of Nations. They have got it all wrong.
I am always endeavouring, with a fervour which would do justice to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), to explain to them the virtues of the League of Nations and the innocency of the term "mandate." But with less success than my exertions deserve. If you were to ask the King and the Government and the Assembly of Iraq what they would really like, they would say," We should like to deal with England directly without any worry about the mandate or the League of Nations. We will make you a Treaty which will give you an admirable and privileged position in our country, in return for your giving us the aid which we require from you in making it a civilised and prosperous State. We would gladly do that." That has been
the argument they have used. "Everything we owe to Britain" is the language they use, and, "We would like to deal directly with you and only with you, and to make a thoroughly good arrangement between the two parties." I have to say to them, "That is all very well, but the League of Nations would never consent to it. "The other Powers would never consent, and rightly so. They would say," What? Is England, having got this territory under a mandate, going to frame a Treaty with special advantages in her favour, and then free herself altogether from the restrictions which the mandate imposed and the obligations which the mandate required?" You can see in a moment what the attitude of the other Allied and Associated Powers would be, without my mentioning the name of any one of them, and how violent and well-founded would be their objection.
Therefore, I have said quite frankly to King Feisal that, whatever our wishes might be, and however reasonable and complimentary to us his view might be, we have no chance whatever of securing freedom from the Mandate, and we are bound in all our dealings with him to take our stand upon that international foundation. I have also said, of course, that we did reserve for ourselves the right, if we really thought it necessary, to jay the Mandate at the feet of the League of Nations and to wash our hands of the whole business. Rather than that we should leave the country and withdraw the aid that is absolutely indispensable to this new State, and bring it to chaos and ruin and bloodshed, those Iraqians who have been pressing most of all for the abrogation of the Mandate will, I am sure, be the first to come forward and to say, "Rather than that England shall withdraw her aid from us, we will endeavour to reconcile our people to the Mandate and to disarm their prejudices on the subject." On that basis I hope we may very shortly reach a satisfactory Treaty, which Treaty has to be submitted to the League of Nations, together with the Mandate, and either this year or next year, or the year after next, or some time when that body is able to arrive at a united and agreed decision on the subject, we shall get it ratified in due form.
An hon. Member asked about oil. There again, of course, we are not completely masters of the position. We have recognised the rights of the Turkish
Petroleum Company, in which we have a great interest, but those rights have not been recognised by the United States, and we have not been proceeding in a brusque or inconsiderate and domineering way in dealing with the matter. On the contrary, we are making every effort to arrive at an amicable agreement with the United States upon the interpretation which is to be placed on the pre-War concessions given in Iraq and in Palestine, In the meantime we are not proceeding with the development of these oil-fields. That is regrettable. It has not been due to idleness on our part, but to our desire not to take steps which would appear to amount to a greedy exploitation by us of properties about which other great and friendly Powers manifest a lively concern. I do not think the Committee has any reason whatever to bear the Colonial Office a grudge for their contribution to the course of events in the Middle East, and in Iraq in particular.
I do not conceal from the Committee that all these last 18 months I have been very anxious lest our internal arrangements in Iraq, which were being proceeded with quite satisfactorily, should be interrupted by an incursion from the Turks in the Mosul district, or by increasing disorder in Kurdistan.
I pointed out a year and a half ago that if our policy was to be successful a satisfactory peace with Turkey was indispensable. We have not got it. We do not seem to be very near to getting it. So we have had to dispense with the indispensable. But we have managed to carry on without that great advantage. Still I do not conceal at all from the Committee that it imposes anxiety upon me. As far as Southern Kurdistan is concerned, we have not the slightest intention of getting ourselves involved or entangled there. We are doing the best we can for Southern Kurdistan, but we are not committing ourselves in any serious way. I have given explicit directions which will prevent anything of that kind arising. We do not wish to force the people of Southern Kurdistan under the Government of King Feisal. They are free to take part or not in the elections which are about to take place, as they choose. We are most anxious to study their wishes and to develop any local variant of the self-government which has been given to Iraq that may commend itself to them.
We believe firmly that the interests of Southern Kurdistan are so closely involved in Iraq that, without any compulsion from us, these two territories will ultimately come into harmonious accord. The situation is not entirely without resemblances to other situations with which the Colonial Office has had recently to deal in other parts of the British Dominions. I do not think we have had a bed of roses to lie upon, but I claim that we have been steadily making good the undertakings given to Parliament, and I hope that next year the burdens which still lie upon us will be still more markedly reduced. If that should be so, and if we should not be interrupted by outside incursions, I think that on the next occasion when I have the pleasure of discussing these matters with the Committee I shall be entitled to extort from them the admission that on the whole this difficult and hazardous experiment is being attended with a certain measure of modified success.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure the whole Committee will express congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for the very considerable amount of success which he has achieved during the last 18 months. I was very glad to hear what he said about South Kurdistan. I am extremely anxious that we should not get into any entanglement, which would be of a very serious and costly character. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had said a little more about the subsidies to the chiefs in Arabia. The situation there is unsatisfactory. We have given these subsidies for years. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the policy. But it is a policy which ought to be reconsidered. Do we get any adequate return for the £150,000 which we are spending in Arabia? I think the policy is certainly improving. There was a time when two Departments of the Government were subsidising rival chiefs and enabling them to fight each other with greater ease than would otherwise have been possible. But probably we still waste a considerable amount of money in Arabia. The Colonial Secretary made considerable objection to the criticism of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) on the subject of economy. I do not think those objec-
tions were well founded. It was said with truth and candour that the economy which the Government had achieved in this matter was due to the pressure of public opinion. The price of economy, like the price of liberty, is eternal vigilance, and the only way in which economy can be enforced under our present system in this House is by people of the position of my right hon. Friend examining with scrupulous care the Estimates, and pointing out even relatively small items on which economies can be made. It is quite true that £900 is a comparatively small sum. If it is not justified, it ought not to be spent. My right hon. Friend was more than entitled to draw attention to a fact which at first sight seemed difficult to explain, namely, that whereas our responsibilities were decreasing in one respect, the expenses of headquarters administration were increasing.
The Colonial Secretary complained very much that sufficient recognition had not been given to him for the fact that he was saving £18,000.000. I agree that the saving of £18,000,000 is an immensely satisfactory circumstance. What moves a great many people is that this £18,000,000. like the other millions that we saved last year, would never have been saved unless the Government had been induced entirely to reverse their original policy. While we are ready to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this saving of money, we are forced to add that if the criticisms of their Iraq policy had been attended to sooner by the Government, this, and much more, would have been saved by an earlier change of policy. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues show a public appreciation of the fact—although they must realise it in their own minds—that they have been forced completely to abandon their original policy in Iraq. The House will recollect that for months, if not years, in the past an entirely different policy was pursued. The object, apparently, was to convert Iran into an Indian province with an Indian administration, a policy that was costly and unpopular, and very nearly led us into very serious military difficulties. That policy has now been completely abandoned. It was wrong from the outset, and was pursued in defiance of criticism and the objections raised against it from outside. Though we are glad it has been abandoned, we
cannot say the Government are entitled to the congratulations of this House or the country because, at long last, they have adopted a policy which, if adopted earlier, would have saved us even more money than they claim to have saved now. That is the essential part of the criticism which may now be directed against the Government.
I do not understand, however, what the new policy is. I listened very carefully to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He explained the objection in Iraq to the policy of mandates, and declared a warm and, indeed, a passionate adherence to the principle of the League of Nations, which he has managed, on occasion, to conceal with great success. When he went on to explain what it was he proposed to put in place of the mandate system, I confess I was puzzled, and I am not sure yet, whether I understand what it is he proposes to substitute. I understand the position in Iraq at the present moment is this, that technically we are there because we conquered the country. We are there by right of conquest, and that is our only right. We have no Treaty rights at all. Technically, at this moment it is occupied enemy territory, and we are free from all Treaty obligations. We can administer the country as we like. I understand an agreement was made as between the principal Allied and Associated Powers that, if and when a Treaty was made, regularising the position, a mandate for this district would be allotted to this country as one among those Powers. When the right hon. Gentleman sneers at the delays which he thinks have taken place or may take place in consequence of the proceedings of the organs of the League, I venture to remind him that, so far, the matter has not come before the League at all. It is still entirely in the hands of the Supreme Council, and if any delays have taken place—and very grave and serious and disastrous delays have taken place in dealing with the whole of the subject—the blame is entirely to be laid on the principal Allied Powers. I think I hear the right hon. Gentleman make a reference to the Associated Powers. He must remember that the Associated Powers had no concern in making this arrangement. The people who had to make peace were the Allied Powers, not the Associated Powers. I know it has been said that
the difficulty in obtaining the views of the United States as to the mandate on Armenia held up the whole negotiations with Turkey, but I have never been able to accept that as anything but a mere excuse for what was, in fact, a very serious failure in the policy of the Allied Powers. The delay has been caused by their delay, and that is a thing which should be thoroughly understood. The League, so far, has had nothing to do with the matter. It has never been broght before the League at all. I read that there is to be a discussion on the terms of the mandate for Palestine before the Council which is due to meet, I understand, in London next week, but I imagine all that can be discussed will be a kind of provisional agreement. If and when a mandate is regularly allotted it will be administered under particular terms which will be there agreed upon.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the policy of the Government were to be one of proposing to deprive their associates in the late War of the advantages, on the faith of which the San Remo Agreement was concluded— that is to say, if they were going to take away from them the open door and advantages of that kind in Iraq, that would cause very grave annoyance and very justifiable annoyance. I agree, also, that if any attempt were made behind the backs of other people, as was unfortunately made in the case of Persia, to set up a Protectorate or something of that nature, then we would incur, as we did there, grave unpopularity and grave objection on the part of the great Powers without achieving any result. To that extent, I am entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not quite know what he really proposes. I can understand that the objection which is felt against the policy of mandates in Iraq is founded on a misapprehension, namely, that a mandate in some way—the word"mandate"— implies some kind of derogation from their national dignity, and they would prefer independence, even if it were accompanied by such Treaty limitations as would, in fact, give them no greater rights than they would have under a mandate. Are the Government going to insist on a mandate or not? Are they going to grant the request of the Arabs to have a qualified independence, rather than a mandated posi-
tion, or are they going to say to the Arabs: You must have the mandate, but we assure you that it does not involve any derogation of your dignity?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not in our power to depart from the mandate unless we throw up the whole position. We are making a Treaty with King Feisal which is designed in every possible way, short of our breaking our honour with the League of Nations, to meet his feelings and the local national feelings.

Lord R. CECIL: I dare say that may be the best policy. It is difficult for anybody outside negotiations to criticise those negotiations while they are in progress. I would draw attention to the terms of a Clause in the Covenant of the League of Nations, to which I feel at liberty to refer, because it was drafted at the direct personal instigation of the Prime Minister, and I was not concerned in it:
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
That is a Clause referring to the Asiatic territories, including Iraq, and I should have thought that on that Clause it was possible to recognise the independence of Iraq, subject to a Treaty securing to the other members of the League and the principal Allied and Associated Powers whatever rights they would have been entitled to under a mandate strictly so-called. In other words, I should have thought there was nothing in that Clause against getting rid of the for m "mandate" if that were really a serious matter for Arab sentiment, and yet preserving to all nations who were parties to this Treaty the rights which they would have had under the Treaty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is very much what we are doing. We are not entitled to disclaim the mandate, but we are acknowledging an Arab State—we are creating an independent Arab State and making a Treaty with that State.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think there is anything more than words, if there is
even that, in difference between us. The only thing I would recommend—and I am sure it has been considered—is that on the question of words some satisfaction might be given. I should like to describe as I see them the essential factors of the situation. There seems to be three of those factors. There are our interests, there are our duties to our fellow signatories, and there are the duties which we owe to the Arabs, included in them being a proper regard for the sensitiveness of the Islamic peoples, which perhaps in some sense may be regarded as an outside consideration. I have always had the greatest doubts whether we have any considerable direct interests in Iraq. I do not much care for what is called the oil policy, but I have very serious doubts whether there is any considerable amount of oil to be obtained, and I do not know what other interests we have got in the country. Our duties to our associate nations are defined by Treaty and have already been described. When we come to our duty to the Arabs, I conceive that since we went into this country and undertook this mission, on the traditional principles of English law and justice, we are not entitled to leave the thing half-done, if by doing so we inflict injury on those into whose country we have entered. But I do think—and in this I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) that the fact that the Arabs are pressing for independence greatly relieves the original obligation we were under to them. We cannot leave the country against the will of the inhabitants and expose those who are friendly to us to slaughter and ruin. I do not want to plunge the country back into chaos, but, at the same time, if the people of the country are pressing for their independence, then it is our business to give as great a measure of independence as it is possible for us to do, and the more we reduce our liabilities in Iraq the better I shall be pleased.
I do not believe who have any interests there. I think our only reason for remaining there is the duty under which we have come to the inhabitants. I do not put it exactly as a pledge; it is more than a pledge. You choose to go into the country, you occupy it, you create an entirely new state of things, and you cannot then suddenly say, "I am going to disregard everything I have done, and expose the whole country to disorder and the people to slaughter." That is im-
possible, but that we ought to do everything we can to reduce our responsibilities I profoundly believe. An hon. Member opposite asked us to do all we could to show the Mahommedans throughout the world that we desire nothing but the welfare of their faith and their system of politics. That may be perhaps true, but in this matter I think we should be acting mistakenly if we thought that that was the main consideration. I believe that the greatness of the British Empire depends on the fact that British administrators have habitually regarded the interests of the actual populations under their control as their first interest and their first duty. I believe that great principle has been the foundation on which the whole of the greatness of the Empire has been built. Therefore, I would not bother too much about the effect our policy was going to have on Mahommedan feeling generally. I doubt very much whether anyone, even the most skilled, can prophesy exactly what effect any particular act will have on that feeling. I am not at all sure that concession to it is the way to conciliate it, but I do think that, having placed ourselves in the position in which we have placed ourselves, we are under a duty to the inhabitants of Iraq, and that we must fulfil it.
I am, however, also convinced that we must reduce our obligations as quickly as we can consistently with the great principle of not deserting our friends. A good many hard things have been said about the policy of scuttle. If scuttle means deserting your responsibilities and exposing your friends to slaughter and ruin, I agree that it is a policy to be condemned, but if it means reducing, by

every means in your power, the responsibilities of our Empire consistently with fairness and justice, then I believe it is the right policy for us to pursue. I do not believe you will find a single statesman of any responsibility for the last half century, whether he called himself Radical or Conservative or Labour, who did not realise that the British Empire does not gain by extending its responsibilities. It is already quite as big as it ought to be in its own interests, and, for my part, I am only too anxious to see our responsibilities in Iraq reduced as quickly and as completely as possible. I should welcome an announcement by the Government that they were satisfied that they could, without injustice to anyone and with the full assent of the inhabitants of Iraq, withdraw from the country altogether, but as long as we cannot get that assent, as long as we are under an obligation to protect our friends in that country, as long as it is part of our duty to see the undertaking through which we entered upon during the War, as long as that policy is imposed upon us by feelings of honour and justice, then I only ask that it should be pursued with as great a regard to the necessities of the time and the urgency of economy as possible, and I welcome any step which will diminish our responsibilities on the lines which I understand the Government are pursuing. I can only express my deep regret that the policy which is now being carried out was not carried out much earlier.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,363,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 79;Noes, 210.

Division No. 213.]
AYES
[6.53 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kennedy, Thomas


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Foot, Isaac
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John James


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Gi[...]s, William
Lunn, William


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Grundy, T. W.
Macveagh, Jeremiah


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hallas, Eldred
Mills, John Edmund


Briant, Frank
Halls. Walter
Morrison, Hugh


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Mosley, Oswald


Cairns, John
Hayday, Arthur
Murray, Dr. D, (Inverness & Rose)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hirst, G. H.
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Irving, Dan
Rendall, Athelstan


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, John


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Royce, William Stapleton
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Sexton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Tillett, Benjamin
Wintringham, Margaret


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Sutton, John Edward
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Swan, J. E.
Wignall, James



Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Griffiths.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Perkins, Walter Frank


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, William George


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Hallwood, Augustine
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Atkey, A. R.
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Pratt, John William


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purchase, H. G.


Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Haslam, Lewis
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barrand, A. R.
Hinds, John
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Rodger, A. K.


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Part. (Gr'nw'h)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Betterton, Henry B.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Houfton, John Plowright
Seager, Sir William


Boscawen, Rt. Hon, Sir A. Griffith-
Howard, Major S. G.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simm, M. T.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Briggs, Harold
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jesson, C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brown, Major D. C.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Kidd, James
Stewart, Gershom


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sturrock, J. Leng


Casey, T. W.
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sugden, W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sutherland, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales]
Taylor, J.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Lindsay, William Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lorden, John William
Thomson, Sir W Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lort-Williams, J.
Tickler, Thomas George


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lowther, Ma).-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Townley. Maximilian G


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Waddington, R.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wallace, J.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Walton, J.(York. W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Martin, A. E.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Middlebrook, Sir William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Williams. C. (Tavistock)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Evans, Ernest
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Windsor, Viscount


Falcon, Captain Michael
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Earl


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wise, Frederick


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fell, Sir Arthur
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Sir J, (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Forrest, Walter
Neal, Arthur
Woolcock. William James U.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gardiner, James
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gee, Captain Robert
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gould, James C.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Green, Joseph F, (Leicester, W.)
Parker, James



Grenfell, Edward Charles

Original Question again proposed.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. L. MALONE: I do not think the Secretary for the Colonies enlightened us in regard to oil in Iraq. I am informed on very reliable authority that since the War not a single gallon of oil has been exported from that country. What is the result of the difficulties which have arisen in Iraq with regard to oil They are impairing the relations between this country and the United States of America. So long as the oil business in Iraq remains unsettled, so long will there be a danger of the relations between this country and America being impaired. Last week I happened to read the Report of the Annual Meeting of the Shell Trading and Transport Company. I saw, in the Chairman's speech, that restricted regulations had been imposed in the United States of America against British ships operating in the ports and harbours of the United States. That is one result of our undecided and unsettled policy in the oil world in general, and in Iraq in particular. I should like the Secretary of State for the Colonies to tell us something about that: matter.
The other question to which I wish to refer is one that I raised at Question Time to-day, as to the publication of the letters which are being quoted in the Press, and which wore written by Sir Henry McMahon to the Sheriff of Mecca. On the 24th October, 1915, Sir Henry McMahon, who was then High Commissioner in Egypt—I am glad to see the Under-Secretary has come in; I hope he will be able to answer this point—wrote certain letters to the Sheriff of Mecca, as he then was. Those letters are being quoted, or rather misquoted, all over this country to show that we have broken our pledges to the Arabs. I am wholeheartedly in favour of our policy towards Palestine, and should have spoken in favour of it had I caught the Speaker's eye, which unfortunately I did not, in the Debate last week on the Rutenberg scheme. The Arabs have associated themselves with all the most reactionary and anti-Semitic bodies in this country. That is one of the reasons why they fail in this country. If they had not associated themselves with these reactionary and anti-Semitic bodies, their cause would have stood a far greater chance of success. These bodies are misquoting this
correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sheriff of Mecca.
I suggested, in my question, and I was supported by other hon. Members, that this correspondence should be published in full. It might be given to the Press, and we should then know once and for all what pledges were given and what were not given. If there be any parts in that correspondence which it would not be in the public interest to publish they could be left out. I want to know, before we pass this Vote, what are the reasons for not publishing this correspondence and what it contains that is inadvisable to publish. I also ask if the Government really realise the importance, of coming to an early decision on the oil question. I hope the Under-Secretary will sec his way to give me a reply to these two questions now.

Mr. MILLS: I should like to supplement the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone), because I feel these are matters on which we should get a little satisfaction. I think his request is not unreasonable, in view of the fact that in the Review of the Civil Administration of Mesopotamia, there is a reference, on page 3, to the safeguarding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It is there stated that
Abadan, the refinery of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, was henceforth safe, and from being an object the protection of which was one of the primary duties of the force, it assumed for the rest of the War the role of purveyor of crude oil, kerosine and petrol, to every branch of His Majesty's Services.
If that were good enough for the purposes of the War, it is good enough for us to know exactly what is the present state of affairs in time of peace. As so many things have been said with regard to the combatent nature of the relationship between Shell oil and Standard oil, and as allegations have been made that practically thousands of lives have been used up in the struggle to get what is regarded as potentially the best oil market in the world, it is very essential that we should have some little enlightenment on this phase of the Government's activities in Iraq.
There is another aspect of the case to which I wish to refer. I do not know whether or not. I shall be in order, but
no doubt the Deputy-Chairman will pull me up immediately I transgress the rules. This afternoon I dared to assert the right of a private Member and to ask for information in regard to a gentleman who served under Lord Cromer as Minister of Education and Justice, and who was referred to by Lord Kitchener as one of the coming men in Egypt. This particular gentleman is at present confined in the Seychelles Islands. I want to know if this Vote carries with it any ability on our part to deal with the question of the Seychelles? An ordinance was conveniently passed within 24 hours of this man's deportation, and in view of the way in which some of these decisions, providing for the detention of people unsuitable to the Government in their own country, were issued, it is incumbent that we should have some exact information as to the conditions in the Seychelles.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I have allowed the hon. Member to make his point. He said he did not know whether he would be in order, and I must tell him that he is out of order.

Mr. MILLS: I defer to your ruling, Sir, and hope that at some future time it will be in order to raise this matter.

Mr. MALONE: I hope there is going to be a reply to the very important questions I put with regard to oil and to the publication of the correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sheriff of Mecca. I want to know why it is not desirable to publish the correspondence. As there is no reply, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That Amendment would not be in order.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 70.

Division No. 214]
AYES.
[7.10 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kidd, James


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Evans, Ernest
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Atkey, A. R.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Falcon, Captain Michael
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Barnston, Major Harry
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lorden, John William


Barrand, A. R.
Forrest, Walter
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Bartley-Denniss. Sir Edmund Robert
Gardiner, James
Maekinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Bonn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Gee, Captain Robert
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Betterton, Henry B.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Martin, A. E.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Middlebrook. Sir William


Borwick, Major G. O.
Grenfell, Edward Charles
Mitchell. Sir William Lane


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, Hugh


Briggs, Harold
Hallwood, Augustine
Neal, Arthur


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Brown, Major D. C.
Haslam, Lewis
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Casey, T. W.
Hinds, John
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Parker, James


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spenoer
Hope, sir M. (Stirling & Cr' ckm'nn,w.)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Perring, William George


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Pollock, Rt Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pratt, John William


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Purchase, H. G.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Houlton, John Plowright
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Howard, Major S. G.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Richardson. Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson. Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Davidson Major-General Sir J. H.
Jesson, C.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rodger, A. K.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rutherford. Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Taylor, J.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Scott, A, M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Scott. Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor, Viscount


Seager, Sir William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Winterton, Earl


Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Tickler, Thomas George
Wise, Frederick


Simm, M. T.
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Woolcock, William James U.


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (F'reston)
Waddington, R.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Stanton, Charles Butt
Wallace, J.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Steel, Major S. Strang
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor



Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sturrock, J. Leng
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Sugden, W. H.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Sutherland, Sir William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D,
Grundy, T, W.
Robertson, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Royce, William Stapleton


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hallas, Eldred
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Halls, Walter
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hartshorn. Vernon
Sutton, John Edward


Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt, Hon. Charles W,
Hirst, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Tillett, Benjamin


Cairns, John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Thomas
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C,


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consort)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wintringham, Margaret


Entwistle, Major C- F.
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Foot, Isaac
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Gillis. William
Poison, Sir Thomas A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Mr. L'Estrange Malone and Mr. Mills.


Gretton, Colonel John
Rendall, Atheistan



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

CLASS II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £307,637, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement."—[NOTE: £367,000 has been voted on account.]

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wish to seize this opportunity to try and get from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies some reply to the Debate which took place last Tuesday. On that occasion we had a long Debate lasting over four hours upon Colonial Office matters. It was opened by a very able survey of the whole field by the Colonial Secretary, but the subsequent Debate was interrupted by other business. We want to reply to certain definite complaints. We want the explanation of the Colonial Office on four
different situations. The first is the Ceylon difficulty where the Constitution is in the melting pot, and has been for over two years. Eighteen months ago it was solving itself perfectly, but now non-cooperation is again rearing its ugly head, and we have the same difficulties presenting themselves which we have failed before to surmount under similar circumstances, and I want to know what the Colonial Office intend to do with regard to this question.
The next point upon which I want an answer is, why is the whole question of the indebtedness of this country to Rhodesia being held up, and why has it been held up for over two years? Why is the South African Government now negotiating with the Chartered Company with a view to discovering some compensation to which both parties can agree when Lord Buxton's Committee recommended that the Colonial Office itself should discover by inquiry the balance of money owing to the Chartered Company, for Southern Rhodesia, and when as regards Northern Rhodesia Lord Bux-
ton's Committee recommended that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should definitely determine the amount of money which was owing to the Chartered Company for their administration of Northern Rhodesia. Those questions are important because the feeling, particularly of the party I represent, is that the Chartered Company are being given terms far higher by the South African Government than they are judicially entitled to, and in order to get these bigger terms for the Chartered Company the people of Southern Rhodesia and the natives in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia are having their interests sacrificed so that the Chartered Company's interests may be secured.
The next question is whether, and if so what, steps are being taken to protect the people in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone against the heavy export duties, and on what grounds the Colonial Office justify on the West Coast the enormous expenditure involved in the capital outlay for harbours and railway works being instituted there when trade is very slack. Also what is the position in Kenya? What position does the Colonial Office now take up with the India Office as regards the status and rights of the Indians in the Kenya Colony? I heard that there was no prospect of the Colonial Office preventing fresh Indians coming in by putting prohibitory fees on Indians coming into the place. I hope to have that statement confirmed, and I also want to know whether the Colonial Office have agreed with the India Office on the fundamental question that there should be only one list of voters and no communal representation in Kenya.
I want to know whether the India Office has managed to persuade the Colonial Office to accept the fundamental demand of the Indians for an equal franchise with the Whites, and I want to be certain that there will be only one list of voters and no communal representation. I also want to know whether the Colonial Office have definitely given their approval to this monstrous tax of 50 per cent. on imported timber, a tax which will redound to the enormous benefit of those people who own so many timber forests in East Africa, and which will be paid for by all the people in Kenya Colony when they want to build
houses or make fences. A protective tariff of 50 per cent. appears to me to be a most lamentable precedent to setting up protective tariffs generally which must effectively ruin the future prospects of the Colony. I am sorry that i had to repeat these questions, but I should like to have from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, particularly in the presence of the Under-Secretary for India, a statement on these points, more particularly as they affect the India Office and the Colonial Office.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to say a few words with regard to the Island of Cyprus. I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether the Government have any fixed policy with regard to that island? A good many people look upon the retention of Cyprus as a crime after all that has happened since 1914. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the small Moslem minority there have declared for incorporation with the people of Greece. We have been fighting a war for the protection of small nationalities and self-determination, and surely that principle cannot be denied in this case. Many men left their work and were killed in the War on the strength of pledges-given by hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to this principle. If we had had any regard for honour or consistency we should have long ago handed Cyprus back to Greece. I am not myself pro-Hellene, and I wish the Government had been more active in opposition to the Greek policy which has done so much harm, but I think in regard to Cyprus they have right on their side.
It has been stated in the Press recently that it is proposed to give Cyprus back to Greece, or rather to allow the Cyprians to choose to which country they wish to owe allegiance, as compensation for the Greeks clearing out of Smyrna. Those are the lines on which conciliation can be effected in the Middle. Last, and at the same time it would do something to satisfy Greece and would gain for us the friendship of the world at large. If that is the case, then it is necessary that the most stringent rules, under proper supervision, should be drawn up to protect the Moslem minority. What has happened to the Moslems in Crete and Thrace and other parts of the country taken over by so-called Christian peoples is only too well known, and while we are
talking a great deal about the rights of Christian minorities in Anatonia and other places let us see that this island is once more restored to the rule of the Hellenes. I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary can give us any information on these points.
At regards Wei-Hai-Wei there is no injustice here except the original loot of that place. It is now being run on economical lines and some of the districts there are quite a model for the Colonial Office, which might well he followed in other parts of the country. The younger generation of China are now showing great patriotism and an awakening spirit, and I understand the position is that we have promised to clear out of Wei-Hai-Wei when the Japanese have completed certain concessions. I want to know why we are asked to spend £1,250 at this place. It would be quite feasible to withdraw at once from Wei-Hai-Wei with one resident official left there, whose salary could be paid out of the revenues of the very rich men. The island is practically self-supporting, and it is not necessary to spend any more money upon it, and we should at once remove every possible sign of our occupation of Wei-Hai-Wei, and leave one political officer there as the representative of our Government. If we did that there would be less excuse for any delay on the part of other nations in carrying out the obligations they entered into at Washington. I believe were we to do that it would go far to encourage the Chinese, and to improve our relations with them. They are a great people; they are big customers of ours, and it is best to be on good terms with them. We have not too many friends in the world, thanks to the policy of the Coalition Government, and I believe the Chinese Government and the Chinese would prove welcome friends and allies. We ought to do all we can to please the Chinese people, and to show them that our protestations are not in vain, but that we mean to carry out our pledges to the letter. I am sorry to see this comparatively small sum is to be voted for Wei-Hai-Wei. I am sorry that any money at all is required for that place.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: I do not propose to deal with the question of Wei-Hai-Wei, but with regard to Cyprus I should like to say that when the hon. and gallant
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) talks about injustice being done to Cyprus he evidently is not aware of the history of Cyprus or of what has occurred there during the past 25 years since the British Government took over control of it. I have not got the figures in my head, but I think the income of Cyprus has risen something like five or six times as much since the British Government took over the island, which is enjoying such prosperity as it never knew before. When, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member refers to injustice to Cyprus, I think he is speaking from ignorance of the subject. Certainly he is misrepresenting the case. That is not the topic on which I rose to address the Committee. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies what steps the Government propose to take in order to give effect to their undertaking that the preference to British sugars shall be based on a 10 years' agreement. I do not wish to raise the whole issue of preference at the present moment, but it is very important if the sugar producers in the British Empire are to get the fullest advantage from the preference which has been granted, that they should be given it upon a 10 years' basis. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary what steps the Government propose to take to make that effective.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Having already spoken in this Debate I desire now only to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Central Hull, who declared that the Greeks have no right to go to Smyrna and that it was altogether wrong they should be there.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear!

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear" and thus repeats his statement. May I point out that the Greeks are in a majority in Smyrna, and if it is right we should give back Cyprus to the Greeks because of the Greek majority there, it is absolutely right also that they should be in Smyrna. The hon. and gallant Member's argument is that the majority of the population of the island is Greek speaking, and that they belong to the Greek Orthodox Church and that therefore they should be handed over to the Hellenic Government. But as a
matter of fact the island has not been Greek for over 2,000 years. During the last 300 years before Cyprus came under England they were under the Turks. Prior to that they were under other races and 2,000 years ago were under the Roman Empire. It is always the same cry with the hon. and gallant Member, England is always in the wrong in his opinion, and I venture to assert he has on this occasion knocked the bottom out of his own argument. I hope we shall have a definite statement from the Colonial Office tonight that they do not propose to hand over either the Moslems or the local Cypriots to the Hellenic Government.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: I do not propose to discuss at any length the question of Kenya, but there are two points connected with it which I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Colonial Office, will give me some information upon. My first question is, has the Colonial Office associated itself in any way with the demand that the emigration of Indians should be stopped? That demand was very strongly expressed at a gathering recently at which the Secretary for the Colonies was present, and it will be a great satisfaction to many, and especially to the people of India, to know that a Measure, so utterly opposed to equity and to the rights of the people of India, as to stop the emigration of Indians to that Colony, has not been sanctioned by the Colonial Office. The other point is this: Can we have an assurance that the policy, so definitely and so emphatically laid down by the Government of India with regard to the principle that Indian subjects of the Crown shall be put on a status of equality with other subjects of the Crown is to be acted upon?
I also want to refer to the question of Aden. I know that does not come under the Colonial Office Vote, but a proposal has been under discussion for transferring that barren and interesting rock to the Colonial Office. I think, therefore, I shall be in order if I put a question to the Under-Secretary on the subject. Will he tell me how far the consideration of that proposal and the negotiations that have taken place on it have gone? There is great anxiety in regard to this subject in India, and especially in Bombay, because when Aden
was occupied by the British in 1839 it was commercially colonised very largely, if not almost entirely, by Indian merchants from Bombay. They have prospered there. They have developed the trade and well-being of the port and settlement, and the Indian community have been some of the most loyal and enterprising subjects of the Crown in that place. Now they are alarmed at the thought that they will be detached from their connection with India and handed over to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Indians constitute about one-fourth of the population of Aden. They are an enterprising and advanced element in that population, and I was very glad to see that the representative of one of the oldest families which has lived in Aden from the time of the annexation to the British Crown has been recently the recipient of a well-deserved honour about which no inquiry is needed seeing that it has the fullest approval in all quarters, for the recipient has been a loyal enterprising and useful citizen, and has done much to develop the prosperity of Aden.
Why is it there is so much objection to this proposed transfer? The reasons alleged for it, I believe, are strategic, and those I do not propose to go into. I do not know what other reasons can be advanced for transferring Aden from the Government of India to the care of the Colonial Office. I do know this, that amongst the people of Aden there is a feeling which is common to the mercantile community in Bombay of deep distrust of the Colonial Office. I hope the hon. Gentleman who represents the Colonial Office will not mind my saying that the Colonial Office stinks in the nostrils of the people of India at this moment. I hope it will not do so for ever. That, however, is one of the reasons why the people of Aden object to being transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary for the Colonies. It is partly because he made a certain speech the other day, but it is mainly because of their distrust and their intense dissatisfaction at the attitude of the Colonial Office in regard to the Indian community at Aden. Whatever the ultimate determination of the fate of Aden may be, may I suggest—

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member too much latitude. Aden does not come under the
Colonial Office Vote. It is under the India Office. So far as the hon. Member was making a suggestion that the Colonial Office should not take it over, I allowed him to proceed, but he is going beyond that. I must now ask him to leave that subject.

Sir T. BENNETT: I am much obliged for the latitude which has been granted to me. I have been trying to look at the question solely from the point of view of the Colonial Office, and to explain why it is that the suggestion to entrust the Colonial Office with the care of Aden is so much resented. For that reason I would suggest that the Colonial Office should defer, at all events, taking over Aden until the feeling in regard to it in Aden and in India has disappeared.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I have no reason to complain of the reception these Votes have received cither to-night or on Tuesday last when they were before the Committee. As I think the Committee is aware, it was not due to any lack of courtesy on our part that neither my right hon. Friend nor I was able to reply to many important points that were raised when we last considered the Vote. I am anxious not to miss another opportunity of dealing with some of the matters to which attention has been drawn, and, therefore, I will now endeavour shortly to answer some of the points which have been referred to. Perhaps I might in one sentence clear the ground in regard to Cyprus, and in relation to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am not sure that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has not already sufficiently dealt with the historical side of the subject. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend opposite will in future appreciate the importance of securing chapter and verse before he commits himself to making statements like that which he did make.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I never referred to the historical side at all.

Mr. WOOD: I wish to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of a more sociological consideration, and that is this: One would have thought from his speech that the population of Cyprus was
entirely unanimous, and that the course of action, as he suggested, would be likely to command almost universal assent among the population of the island. He must know as well as I do that that is very far from being the case. I can only assure him, and others who are interested, that, so far as I am aware—and I think I must have heard of it otherwise—there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to take Cyprus from its present position as part of the British Empire. I hope, so far as I am concerned, that that matter is final.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who opened our discussion this afternoon, and to his observations referring to points raised on a previous occasion. The first point that he addressed himself to was that of the Ceylon Constitution. I really must profess myself bewildered by the mental state or intellectual conclusions at which my hon. and gallant Friend managed to arrived I can only suppose that his information and mine are widely divergent. I think that investigation will show that if there is divergence, that it is my information which is correct, and his that is wide of the mark. What has happened? The main facts are not in dispute. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman led us on the last occasion over the earlier history of the Ceylon Constitution. With that history I have no complaint to make. As I had occasion to remark, in the course of the last Debate, what had happened was, that on the initiative of the Legislative Council itself, a Committee was appointed—after being passed unanimously by the Legislative Council—to consider and review the problem of territorial and other allocations of seats of the Council. The real difficidty, as he knows as well as I, or better, is not reaction, indifference and slowness on the part of the Colonial Office: it is the fundamental difficulty and clash of interest between the Cingalese in Ceylon. I have before me telegrams of protest from some of the communities in Ceylon, telegrams immediately evoked by the references of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to this matter the other day in Debate. He suggests that I should take an opportunity of consulting, or inviting my right hon. Friend to consult, Sir Graeme Thomson, the Colonial Secretary for Ceylon, a Gentleman for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman has great
respect. I can only assure him that I discussed this matter at great length with Sir Graeme Thomson a few days before this Vote was taken in Committee last week. From all I said and for the course of action I outlined I had, so far as I am aware, the full concurrence and assent of Sir Graeme Thomson. There is no difference of opinion at the present stage of affairs between Sir Graeme Thomson and those who advise my right hon. Friend.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether this Committee is still appointed by the elective members of the Legislative Council? Can he also tell me what are the terms of reference of the Committee?

Mr. WOOD: I will let the hon. and gallant Gentleman have them, certainly. I will send him a copy of them, if I have them, of which I am not quite certain, but in any case no doubt I can obtain a copy. With regard to the appointment of the Committee, I am not quite certain about the numbers, but it is certainly true that five or seven of the elected members who originally decided to sit upon the Committee have found a reason for now declining to do so. The rest of the Committee, I presume, is going on, and no doubt will eventually frame a report. If it does not from a report, I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the duty will return to the shoulders of the Colonial Office of dealing with the constitution in the absence of such a report. But in the first instance I do submit to my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not reasonable to blame the Colonial Office, because they have been willing to accede to the unanimously expressed wish of the Legislative Council to allow a Committee of the Council to deal with that matter. So much for Ceylon.
I come to Rhodesia. As I understand it, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's complaint was that more rapid progress had not been made with the valuation of land in Southern Rhodesia, that the British South Africa Company had either themselves appropriated land for commercial purposes or had alienated it. I have been puzzled by the figures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the last Debate. As I followed his argument, he seemed to suggest that these deductions, which, of course, when valued and agreed, ought to
be deducted from the sum due under the Cave Award—he had the impression that those deductions would completely cancel and wipe out the Cave Award. On all the figures I have seen that is the most startling suggestion to make. The company's valuation of the two sets of lands amounts altogether to somewhat less than £400,000. The highest estimate suggested by anyone else than I have seen is £1,000,000. The Cave Award was £4,500,000. There is a very wide bridge between these figures.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is over a million acres.

Mr. WOOD: Yes, but land varies in different parts of the world, and I understand it is not so high in Southern Rhodesia as in other parts. But the further fact is that when the deputation of elected members was over here last autumn consulting with my right hon. Friend on the question of the future government of Southern Rhodesia, so far as I know, they never once raised the question that their evolution was being checked or hampered by any delay—if they had thought it was avoidable, which it was not—in arriving at a decision on these matters. I would point this out to my hon. and gallant Friend, who has been rather severe on the alternative opportunity offered to Rhodesia of going into the Union—perhaps I need not now discuss the broad policy—but if Rhodesia does at this referendum decide for union, all the necessity for going over these difficult and complicated questions of land valuation, so far as we are concerned, automatically lapses; therefore, inasmuch as the process of valuation would be one involving considerable expense, I am not at all satisfied that it is unwise, or even unfortunate, that we have not embarked upon it until we know for certain they may not be going into the Union of South Africa. I do not sec the Noble Lord the Member for Fast Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Ben[...]inck) here, but perhaps I might make one observation in reply to the points he raised in relation to Northern Rhodesia. He referred to the reported eviction of natives on a large scale in Northern Rhodesia, near Msoro. There would seem to be some misunderstanding about this case, to which my attention has previously been directed from other quarters. The upshot of the
inquiries I have been able to make is that three to six months ago the native people were assured that no removal would take place until the whole question of native reserves had been considered by a duly-appointed Commission. I only want to make this clear, because there has been considerable misunderstanding in other quarters, and it is as well to remove it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend please say something as to the company's claim in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. WOOD: I do not quite know what my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to know about it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Colonial Office were going to present a case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to determine what were the claims of the chartered company in respect to Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. WOOD: Yes, that is so. And the terms of reference and the case to be referred to the Judicial Committee have been and are under consideration with the Law Officers, and although to laymen like ourselves the process of the law may appear at times to move slowly, I understand that we expect it now to move more quickly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is now two years!

8.0 P.M.

Mr. WOOD: In regard to East and West African taxation, I do not know that I have really very much to add to what I said the other day. I have read and re-read the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and I have one or two remarks to make upon them. If he will allow me to say so, in regard to one or two points, he falls into inaccuracy. Those present will remember he drew a sad picture of the native men and women being reduced by high taxation and hard economic conditions to a state of inability to afford proper covering. He gave as an example that into Kenya and Uganda there had been imported in 1913 one and a half million blankets, while in 1921 the importation was only 600,000. The obvious inference was that this immense diminution from one and a half million in 1913 to 600,000 in 1921 was primarily and directly due to the iniquitous taxation that the Colonial Office had imposed in the post-War
period. It is the fact that the number had already fallen to 600,000 in 1914–15, before this high taxation became operative, and, therefore, some other explanation is necessary. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was very glad to have the opportunity of attacking some of those who, he may think, may derive benefit from the tax on imported timber, but, in fact, previously there was a duty of no less than 20 per cent. on timber, and, therefore, when he talks about a new duty of 50 per cent., he leaves many of his hearers to suppose that a new duty of 50 per cent. has been imposed, whereas it is an increase of 30 per cent. I dislike all increases of import duty, but I am not sure a case may not be made out that advantage is derived from the increase of the timber duty from the point of view of conserving and developing the natural resources of the colony of Kenya. I think the only other matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow drew attention was the matter of the 10 years' guarantee of continuance of preference. As has been repeatedly stated in this House, that guarantee of preference that I was authorised to give in the West Indies was a guarantee that was applicable to all Imperial products from whatever part of the Empire on objects that enjoy a preference, and that guarantee was to remain at the same rate of proportionate preference for a period of 10 years.

Captain BENN: Did it involve any undertaking on the part of the Government that the whole duty should not be in any case removed?

Mr. WOOD: I wish it did, but it did not. All it did was to guarantee that, whatever was the duty, they should have proportionate preference for that period, and my hon. and gallant Friend recognises very well that if the duties were reduced to a very low figure, the value of the proportionate preference would be proportionately diminished. I only wish to take the opportunity of saying that there has been, I think, some misunderstanding in the West Indies and elsewhere, and I wish to make it absolutely plain that, so far as His Majesty's Government have the power, they wish to do everything in their power to secure the continuance of this policy, and they are confident that that policy will do some-
thing to encourage and restore confidence that has been impaired in the sugar industry by these very difficult times. With regard to Wei-hai-wei, about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked a question, the general position of Wei-hai-wei is, of course, as he stated, namely, that it is part of the general restitution in which Japan takes part with us, and therefore the provision of money that falls to be met by us in the period covered by the Estimates is only a proportionate sum represented by the necessity of providing what is a transitory need, and that, of course, has been brought to an end. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir T. Bennett) referred to the position of Indians in Kenya, and on that I had some observations to make on the last occasion. I do not know that I should do much good by adding at this stage anything to what I then said. My hon. Friend may rest assured that I do not under-estimate the difficulty of the problem. I have seen on more than one occasion considerable harm done by a chance word that is telegraphed out to India, and this is mis-interpreted and mis-quoted, and the thing is torn from its context and represented as the settled policy of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, if the Committee will allow me, I prefer not to add to what was, on the whole, a carefully considered statement which I made the other day, and will allow me not to say more than that I and my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, on behalf of the India Office, have been in consultation on the matter, in the hope of arriving at an agreement which would be generally acceptable to each of our constituent parties.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I think, knows sufficient of the question to appreciate that the points to which he attaches importance are also points to which the constituents of my Noble Friend attach importance, and that, therefore, if we are to reach an agreement, as I hope we may, it is not likely that that agreement will be reached without due regard being had to those points to which he has directed attention. Beyond that, I do ask the Committee not to press me, but to allow me to assure them that if, as I hope, it may
be possible to arrive at some agreement on this very difficult question, then I hope it will be the duty of my hon. Friend to make a full statement to the House. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks as to Aden, I quite appreciate the difficulties he mentioned, and I regret if the Colonial Office be not so popular in those parts as the India Office. But I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not think that there is any immediate likelihood, or even any near likelihood, of the transfer taking place, and becoming effective. It is not altogether an easy problem. Apart from the political con siderations to which he alluded, there are financial and other considerations involved.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that any sort of pledge has been given to the West Indies with regard to preference in the future, and if any attempt has been made to bind future Governments? If a pledge has been given by the hon. Gentleman, it puts us in a very curious position should we come into power. We do not want to be taunted with wishing to break pledges. I think the House ought to have been asked if that be the case I admit I am not fully seized of the situation, but if I am, I think the hon. Gentleman has rather exceeded his power. To put it bluntly, he has no business to do anything of the sort, and I hope we shall have some explanation from him.

Mr. WOOD: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to go into the whole policy. The facts have been repeatedly stated in this House. I can assure him I did not exceed my powers, and the Government, through me, gave an undertaking to the West Indies for a period of ten years, but in giving that undertaking they were conscious that they could not bind their successors, as, obviously, no Government can bind its successors. But in giving it, they were not unconscious that it is one of the honourable traditions of public life in this country, from which my hon. and gallant Friend, if he forms a Government, will be most reluctant to depart, that pledges which have been given responsibly, and after due reflection by predecessors of whatever party, shall be fulfilled.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We have not been asked to vote on this
question, as far as I know, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of many Liberals in the country and Members of the Labour party when I say we cannot hold ourselves bound by this. I am the last to say we cannot carry out pledges entered into legitimately, but I say that, owing, no doubt, to the accumulation of Government business in the nature of things— I make no charge against my hon. Friend —this has been smuggled through as a minor piece of policy, and has been lost sight of in the rush of great events.

Mr. WOOD: It has been repeatedly stated over and over again.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: In Questions, when it could not be argued. Do not let it be supposed that we are binding ourselves to anything of the sort. This matter ought to have been brought in in proper form, after a full-dress Debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It would not bind you even then.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It would have more weight.

Mr. MILLS: I very much regret the necessity of having to intervene in this Debate, but, whatever may happen to be the opinions of hon. Members who are now present, the scene raised this afternoon would, if it went unchallenged, convey to the country a wrong impression of the sense of humanity of the people as a whole. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the case of this lonely old man of 74 who is now in the Seychelles Islands, this Estimate for the Commissioner for the Western Pacific is the only opportunity chat is afforded to us of calling attention to the real lack of humanity, and to the still greater lack of statesmanship, on the part of those who are handling this problem. If this man dies——

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. (By Order.)

As amended, considered.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £307,637, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement.

Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

Mr. MILLS: I am certain that in the long run we shall be proved, as usual, to have been right, and the supporters of the Government will be proved to have been wrong. On many occasions recently we on this side of the House, on putting questions with regard to this matter, have been met by a torrent of abuse. Even when we have put a supplementary question it has never reached the Minister on the other side, because of the volume of abuse that has followed even the putting of a question to the bench opposite. The particular matter at issue is this. Here is a man exiled to the Seychelles, one of the most deadly places in the Pacific, at the age of 74—a man who has rendered service under the Crown in years gone by, and who is not condemned by all the opinion in this country, because, in spite of the bitter attack that was made upon him in the Debate of the 14th March, even by the Leader of the House, no less a person than the Secretary of the Milner Commission—himself a Coalition Member —said this:
I would not have it thought that I wished to shirk saying something about the
question of Zaghloul Pasha. My experience in Egypt, such as it has been, has taught me that it is always wise to avoid extremes, and I rather regretted that the Leader of the House should have taken quite so decided a line about Zaghloul Pasha."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March; cols. 2112–13, Vol. 151.]
The hon. Member went on to say that in his opinion this man has a great career of usefulness yet to serve in the times that are ahead in the future government of Egypt. He has been deported. As to the manner or the merits of his deportation I will not argue, but will deal with the matter from the point of view of the effect on the people of Egypt if this man dies in exile. There are many other places to which he could be deported, where the question of his death might not, possibly, arise, but in this lonely Pacific island, where, as we have at last, after months of questioning, secured the admission, there is not a single fully-qualified man on the island to deal with any complaint. Many of these gentlemen have been in the habit, as indeed have many Members of the Government, of visiting specialists on the Continent to bolster up their health and see them through for a further period. We have the admission this afternoon that the stoppage of communications is due to the fact that he is suffering from bronchitis and cardiac failure. Cardiac failure, in a man 74 years of age, is no light matter. It may mean death, and I would suggest that, before this is passed lightly over, some consideration should be given to the matter by the Government, if only it results in the removal of this gentleman from the place in which he is detained at the moment.
The so-called rebels of to-day are proved to be the friends of to-morrow. I and other Members have been howled down when we Attempted to put questions about the mentality or courage of Mr. Michael Collins, or any of his followers, but those who did that have now shaken hands with him. He has become quite a respectable person. His picture postcards are on sale. In the days to come, when the real truth of the matter comes out, some similar reversal of public opinion will follow in this matter. It is because I believe that the best interests of the Government will be served by a policy of humanity, that I hope that, even at this last moment, the Colonial Office will say just exactly what are their
plans with regard to this man and his associates. The Government are responsible, because the Seychelles Islands are under the administration of the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Office set itself out to get certain Acts legalised in the House of Commons at 24 hours' notice, in order to provide for the reception of this gentleman. Any likelihood of his death will mean such a volume of resentment in Egypt that no body of Europeans, nor the small handful of white troops there, could possibly cope with the outbreak that may ensue, and, therefore, I feel that I am doing a public duty in calling attention to the matter and expressing the hop? that there may be some reversal of the present policy.

Mr. LAWSON: I rise to support the plea that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills). I trust that the Colonial Office will not deal with this very grave matter in the spirit in which the House dealt with it this afternoon. I want to make my protest against that scene. I care not how little the House likes a particular person or a particular movement; it is not in harmony with the traditions of the House that it should treat it with the contempt with which it treated this matter this afternoon. I say frankly, however, that it is in harmony with the composition of the present House of Commons. I was present when a question was asked about the death of the Lord Mayor of Cork, and I remember the laughter with which that question was greeted. Inside the House it was thought to bo a good joke, but outside it caused the people almost to hang their heads with shame. Who is there now who would defend for a moment the laughter that greeted that question about the death of the Lord Mayor of Cork in this city? Some of us have refrained from asking questions about this matter of Zaghloul Pasha, because we did not want to embarrass the people who are trying to carry out what they believe to be a successful policy in Egypt at the present moment but at least we expected that the Colonial Office would have the good sense to see that, if they treat this matter with lightness, it will certainly not have a good effect upon the present position in Egypt. Everyone who has been in touch with Egypt recently knows that, however much we may talk about the settlement of the
Egyptian question, the fact remains that people who have recently returned from that country speak of the very grave condition of opinion which is prevailing there.
This man is certainly suffering very seriously. He is almost dying. If he dies in the Seychelles in our hands it will fan into flame the feeling that is certainly prevailing in Egypt, and will make almost impossible a complete settlement of the Egyptian question. It is to the interest of the Colonial Office and of good Government in Egypt to give all the attention that can possibly be given to this lonely old man. He at least was spoken very highly of by Lord Cromer, whose autographed photograph is treasured by him. It will not be for the good government of Egypt. It will not have a good effect at all if this matter is treated lighly and this old man is left to suffer, as he undoubtedly is at present. There are people who doubt his judgment, but certainly the gentleman mentioned by my hon. Friend, who was the secretary to the Milner Commission, did not seem to think it was lack of judgment. I should say the best thing the Government could do in the present state of feeling is to bring that man from the Seychelles and either put him in a more tolerable position or release him altogether, for I think if the present scheme which we have put into operation in Egypt has a chance at all, it will have a better chance by the palliation of feeling which will take place as the result of his release. At least I hope the Colonial Office is not going to take the spirit of the House this afternoon, which was hollow, shallow, unworthy not only of the House but of the traditions of Parliament generally, as any guide.

Mr. E. WOOD: I do not know whether it would assist the Committee if I made one remark. Neither I nor the Colonial Office are responsible for Zaghloul Pasha being in the Seychelles. That has nothing to do with the Colonial Office as an Office. What we are responsible for, I suppose, while he is in the Seychelles is that we should do everything we can to preserve him in good health.

Captain W. BENN: Who stops him from leaving there?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that,
rightly or wrongly, the policy of the Government was responsible for his deportation to the Seychelles. As I conceive it, the duty of the Colonial Office is limited to keeping him in good health while he is in the Seychelles. Whatever it is possible to do we are doing. He is having the best medical attendance the islands afford. I have not the least doubt whatever is required for him is being and will be done. I think the two hon. Members who have addressed themselves to this point are in danger of exaggerating the climatic disadvantages of the Seychelles. I have never been there, but I have recently spent some weeks with the late Governor, who was a Member of this House and is now Governor of the West Indies, and he told me it was a very delightful climate and not at all a deadly island in the Pacific as the hon. Member doscribed it, though incidentally it would be more correct to say the Indian Ocean. I only suggest that in order that we may not lose our sense of proportion. I was in the House this afternoon, and I really was not aware of a scene in the sense which would justify hon. Members' indignation. If they want to know what Members laughed at, I can tell them. It was not out of any lack of sympathy with Zaghloul, but it struck many Members as humourous to hear him described as His Excellency.

Captain BENN: Certainly he is entitled to be called that.

Mr. WOOD: The fact that hon. Members were inclined to smile did not imply any lack of sympathy with him.

Dr. MURRAY: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's explanation, I do not think the House was at its best this afternoon from a humanitarian or an Imperial point of view in dealing with this question. It was only a repetition of what occurred a fortnight ago, when a similar question was put to the Foreign Under-Secretary. It was the first time I took an interest in the matter, and when I heard the Under-Secretary admit that Zaghloul Pasha was suffering from diabetes, which it is a matter of public knowledge is one of the most serious maladies which anyone can suffer from, I asked a supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman—who, I thought, had treated the matter rather lightly—which was also one of common and not of
medical knowledge: "Is it not a fact that mental worry—and there is no doubt this gentleman must be suffering from mental worry in his present surroundings —is one of the most serious and aggravating ancillary causes of diabetes?" It is one of the most predisposing causes. The House did not understand the question, and simply laughed. I do not think the House has been at its best in dealing with the sufferings of this one man. I pass no opinion upon the political aspect of the matter, except in the political repercussion of the attitude which this House and the Government take to a man of the age of 74 who has been, for what he considers his duty to his own country, deported in the evening of his life far away from his own home. That should call out for the sympathy of anyone, and the Government ought to show more sympathy with his Excellency than they have been doing.
I have happened since that incident to look further into the matter and have read all the documents that bear upon the health of Zaghloul Pasha. I have seen certificates from men of European fame in Paris and elsewhere, and I have come to the conclusion that, whatever may be the climate of those islands to which he is deported, in the interests of his health it is necessary that he should be brought to Europe to get special treatment, which he has been in the habit of getting and which has helped to prolong his life to 74. I say nothing about the

climate of the Seychelles. It is necessary in the interests of his health that he should get that special treatment to which he has been accustomed in years gone by, and if political implications would admit of it, I would ask the Government, in the interest of their own political ideals in connection with Egypt and in the interest of their own policy in Egypt, not to allow it to be said that they prevented this man from getting the very best medical help he could in order to prolong his life and save him from further suffering. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to treat this aspect of the case with a little more sympathy. It is no use scolding Members who are present for Members who are absent, but if the House were here I would appeal to them also to deal with this aspect of the man's case in more British fashion than has been done hitherto. I do not think, when you have this man in your power on a lonely island, it is right for the British House of Commons to smile at his sufferings.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I ask a question—a pertinent one, I hope I Have the Colonial Office thought for a moment what might happen in the political feelings of the Egyptians themselves if this old gentleman were to die in exile? That appears to me to be rather an important matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 68.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
[8.37 P.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hills, Major John Waller


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hinds, John


Atkey, A. R,
Ednam, Viscount
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Holmes, J- Stanley


Barnston, Major Harry
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Evans, Ernest
Hopkins, John W. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bigland,. Alfred
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Houfton, John Plowright


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Foreman, Sir Henry
Hurd, Percy A.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Forrest, Walter
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Briggs, Harold
Gee, Captain Robert
Jephcott, A. R.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jesson, C.


Brown, Major D. C.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Bruton, Sir James
Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Butcher, Sir John George
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Casey, T. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Kidd, James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gritten. W. G. Howard
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Clough, Sir Robert
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hallwood, Augustine
Lorden, John William


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Lort-Williams. J.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Haslam, Lewis
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Davies Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Maitland, Sir Arthur D, Steel-
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Tryon, Major George Clement


Martin, A. E.
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, J.


Mason, Robert
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Middlebrook, Sir William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Seager, Sir William
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on.T.)
Winterton, Earl


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Simm, M, T.
Wise, Frederick


Neal, Arthur
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Wood. Hon. Edward F, L. (Ripon)


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanton, Charles Butt
Woolcock, William James U.


Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Stewart, Gershom
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sturrock, J. Leng
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Parker, James
Sugden, W. H.



Perring, William George
Sutherland, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Taylor, J.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Pratt, John William
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)



Purchase, H. G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barnes, Major H, (Newcastle, E.)
Halls, Walter
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sutton, John Edward


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayward, Evan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Tillett, Benjamin


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Waterson, A. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham. Consett)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Wintringham, Margaret


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Foot, Isaac
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Gillis, William
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Rhys Davies and Mr. Lawson.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robertson, John



Question put, and agreed to.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES REGISTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,746, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."—[NOTE: £14,500 has been voted on account.]

Captain W. BENN: This is the appropriate occasion to raise a matter which has aroused great interest among friendly societies, namely, the imposition of a 10s. fee on returns made by branches of societies. The Committee will remember that the Geddes Committee in their Second Interim Report on the Friendly Societies Registry drew attention to the Appropriations-in-Aid on this Vote, and made a suggestion—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): Perhaps it would shorten discussion if I announce that we do not propose to impose this charge.

Captain BENN: My desire certainly is to shorten discussion, and I can only say that the announcement which the Government now make—that they do not propose to impose this charge, which would have been a very serious handicap on many societies, of many branches, and a heavy burden on their small management fund—will be very welcome, and will give very general satisfaction.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,779,937, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."—[NOTE: £900,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
This Vote has not received any consideration in Committee of Supply for some time, and as it is, in itself, an index of Government and Departmental activities is deemed advisable to have an examination of the Estimates now before the Committee. The Vote this year is for £2,679,000, and the gross total amounts to no less than £3,454,937. The expenditure on this Department in 1913 was £1,059,000. Therefore there is an increase of £2,400,000. That, it is true, is a reduction on last year's Estimate. But if you go back to the year before that, I think that in round figures the sum for stationery and printing was about £5,000,000. That was when all the Departments were in their happiest and most flourishing days. A Select Committee was appointed to examine into Publications and Debates Reports, and that Committee issued a Report which was ordered to be printed, in August, 1921. The unfortunate part of these reports is that very often they relate to the expenditure of a year previous, and, though they contain valuable information for the preceding year, they do not give any real guide to current expenditure. But there are one or two points in connection with that Report which are apposite to the present Estimate.
If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will look at paragraph 3 he will notice that the Committee, in their Report for 1920, suggest this very common-sense reform, that in every Department a small Departmental Committee should be set up which would meet periodically to revise the publications, and to review expenditure of public money on them, and that there should be a much closer relation between the Stationery Office and the Department for which the Stationery Office works. That recommendation was followed by two or three of the Departments, but in the case of others it was not adopted. When the Minister replies will he tell the Committee whether that sensible recommendation is now adopted by all the Departments, and if not what Departments have not adopted them, and what reasons there are for not following out what has been done by other Departments? Then there was another recommendation made, that where a Department received stationery from the
office it should be informed at once of the-cost so that it should get to know the cost at a date not later than 14 days after its delivery. That sounds a very sensible-suggestion, but I would make another suggestion, that when the Departments send their order they should ask for an estimate of the cost just as an ordinary business man does. It seems to me that, before you close an order, you ought to know what the cost is going to be, instead of finding out 14 days after you have had the supply of stationery. This is rather typical of the way in which Government Departments compare with private business concerns. If this were forced upon the Departments, so that they should feel what their responsibility is with regard to expenditure, not only in this, but in many other matters, I am certain that tens of thousands of public money would be saved to the public Exchequer in any year under any Government. I wanted to know whether that recommendation has been carried out by the Departments as a whole. Then there was a recommendation No. 6 relating to Government advertisements, that Members of the House of Commons should be added to the Advisory Committee on the subject. I would like some answer to be made on those points.
Passing to the Vote as a whole, it seems an enormous sum, four years after the War, that we should be spending on our stationery and printing two and a half times as much as we spent before the War. For perhaps 18 months after the War there was a very large number of War Departments. But some of them have been closed down, and others are almost in a moribund condition with regard to their activities, or at least let us hope they are. What reason can there be for this very large expenditure so much in advance of the year before the War, when Governmental activity is, I should hope, very much on the decline, and when, as is the case this year, the cost of material and wages and all the ordinary important factors which go to make up a total price are very much less than they were 14 months ago? All those facts have been brought into consideration in the Estimate now presented to the Committee.
In Class II, Vote 31, page 216, we find particulars of the cost of stationery for the various Departments. I am not sug-
gesting that the Under-Secretary can answer for these Departments, and therefore I will not criticise that part of it. I notice that the Home Office in 1919–20 spent on stationery and printing £10,041, but in the completed year 1920–21 the expenditure was £14,000. The Board of Trade spent £54,000, a reduction of about £4,000 on the previous year. The Department of Overseas Trade, which has been very much criticised, spent no less than £10,366 in 1920–21 on its printing, or within £4,000 of the total of the Home Office. The Minister in charge of this Vote happens also to be Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. It seems alarming that the Home Office, with its extraordinary range of activities, should have spent only £4,000 more than the Department of Overseas Trade for the whole of its stationery and printing. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport is present. I notice that in 1920–21 the Ministry of Transport spent on stationery and printing £15,282.
These Estimates, after all, are one of the symptoms of the activity of Government Departments in showering forms of various kinds upon the long-suffering public, and I am sure that where you find a shrinkage of the Votes in a Department, it is a symptom of less interference with the subject than we have had for some time. That is a very satisfactory state of things for the average citizen of this country. I would be glad if my hon. Friend would reply to these questions and satisfy me and other Members as to the reasonableness of the Estimate laid before us. There is one item which shows a large increase during last year. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) is to deal with it. It is for printing, paper, binding, etc., for the Houses of Parliament. The Vote for last year was £100,000; this year it has gone up to £105,000. That seems to me to be a large sum, and an increase of £5,000 during a time of great financial stringency wants a great deal of justification.

9.0 P.M.

Sir ROWLAND BLADES: In the temporary absence of the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir C. Higham), I am Chairman of the Debates Committee. I would like warmly to support the last speaker in reference to the Report of the Select
Committee of 1921. I do not propose to add to his remarks. On one point I would like to have an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. The State Printing Works at Harrow are being maintained on trial for three years from June, 1920, to June, 1923. Is it not possible, some time before the latter date, to have a thorough inquiry, preferably by a Departmental Committee, to ascertain whether it is necessary to continue those works?

Mr. FOOT: I had put down an Amendment for the reduction of these Votes under the heading F (Parliamentary Debates and Records). I wish now to associate myself with the criticism made by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I hope that later there may be some justification for figures which outside this House would be regarded as colossal. On page 210, for instance, over and above the considerable amounts there shown as paid, there are very heavy sums for bonuses, although these are gathered up at the foot of the column. A bonus of nearly £100,000 is being paid. The criticism I have to make is not merely that, generally speaking, there is too heavy an expenditure upon this Vote, but that where a small economy has been effected the economy has been made in the wrong place. I draw attention to the Vote under the heading F on page 213, where, in relation to Parliamentary Debates and Records, there is an anticipated expenditure of £33,500, against £38,500 in the previous year. If Members will turn to page 214 they will see that it is estimated that this year there will be received from the sale of Parliamentary Debates £5,000, against £2,750 in the last year. That, of course, is an addition of £2,250 to the Appropriations-in-Aid. I ask the Committee to consider whether that small economy is worth the making.
The question has been raised in this House on one or two occasions, whether or not the raising of the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Parliamentary Debates is a wise economy. Questions were put on the subject before I became a. Member of the House, and in my recollection they have been put since I became a Member. From the answers given I have learned that the average number of copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT circulated last year was 3,200 daily.
Taking the whole year through, the average was 3,200 a day. The figures for the present year show a substantial reduction. In answer to a question which I put a few weeks ago, it was stated that 1,700 REPORTS were gratuitously circulated and 800 were sold. That is a total of 2,500 daily as against 3,200 every day last year. I assume that reduction may be explained by the fact that the price has been raised from 3d. to 1s. I was informed in answer to a question which I put, that the price had been raised on 4th December, 1921. I asked whether the raising of the price had been sanctioned by the House, and the answer was, that it had been done without any reference to this House, but I was assured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that an opportunity would come for raising this matter when the Stationery Vote came up for consideration.
I suggest this is something more than a question of the difference between paying 3d. and paying 1s. for the OFFICIAL REPORT; that it touches the history of the House and goes back to grave constitutional questions. The reporting of the proceedings of this House, so that the public outside might be aware of all that is taking place within its walls, is a very old matter, and one which has occupied the attention of the House for generations. As far back as 1641 a Member of the House was sent to the Tower, because he dared to publish reports of the proceedings of the House, and the book which contained his publication of the proceedings was ordered by the House to be burned by the common hangman. Later on, in the year 1771, there were very fierce discussions in the country, and there were tumults, even within the House, before the principle was secured that all that happened within these walls should be reported to the public outside. I believe that on one occasion in one sitting no fewer that 23 Divisions were taken, when the printers were brought before the House because they had dared to defy what were called the House's privileges at the time. It was Edmund Burke who, after the 23 Divisions were taken, said that
Posterity would bless the pertinacious-ness of that night.
The principle was established in later years, and I was interested to look up a report on the matter earlier than that to
which the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has referred. He referred to a Select Committee which reported on the matter a year or two ago, but I have been looking up a report on the question which was made to the House in the year 1835. There was then appointed a Select Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Joseph Hume, the famous economist of that time. One of its Members was Sir James Graham and another was Mr. Gladstone. The Report of that Committee marked a new step in the history of Parliamentary publications, because, after very careful and exhaustive inquiry, the Committee came to the conclusion that it was a right thing to make readily available to the public outside, in the cheapest possible form, all reports of Proceedings within Parliament and all Parliamentary Papers. It was considered that the economic price should not be the deciding factor, but that the determining consideration should be the ease with which the public outside could make themselves acquainted with all that happened within. One of the Clauses in that Report read in this way:
That the Reports and the Parliamentary papers printed for the use of the House should be rendered accessible to the public by purchase at the lowest possible price for which they can be furnished. That a sufficient number of copies should be furnished for that purpose.
There was another Resolution which said that it was the duty of the Legislature to offer the greatest possible facility to the distribution of Acts of Parliament, and the Committee went on to say that the economic price should not be the determining factor. It seems to me that whoever decided that the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT should be raised from 3d. to 1s. ignored all those considerations. Probably he did not know he was interfering with grave constitutional issues. Probably he had no record of the decisions of this Committee in 1835, but surely, in these days, it is more and more necessary we should give the fullest opportunity fur everyone outside who is concerned to see what is happening here. The newspapers are giving less and less attention to this House, and some newspapers have to be searched very carefully to find if the House has been sitting at all on the previous day.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is it the "Pink Un"?

Mr. FOOT: The "Pink 'Un" is perhaps about the average; it may be that the "Pink 'Un" does make some references to the Debates in this House, but even if one turns to the more expensive newspapers, I think it will be agreed that their reports are so much shortened, that it is impossible for one to properly follow all that has happened in the House unless he gets the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate. A distinguished Member of the House, Mr. Leonard Courtenay, used to argue that the importance of this House was not so much as a Legislative Chamber, but as a deliberative and consultative chamber; that this should be a House in which all great public questions come up for full discussion. If we regard the House in that way, then more importance should be attached to the distribution of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have had complaints made to me, and perhaps my experience is not peculiar, by those who, up to December of last year, availed themselves of the cheapness of the REPORT. Only a few days ago a gentleman spoke to me about the matter, and said he had had the REPORT sent to him every day, but found the additional expense too heavy for his slender purse.
I should like to see, if possible, every club and every public institution, and every library, have the OFFICIAL REPORT available for all who cared to consult its columns. I have been spoken to on the matter by trade unions in the part of the country from which I come formerly they got these Reports, but some of the smaller branches cannot now afford them. Is the economy worth making? They propose to save £l,250, but I submit in saving that, they are to some extent cutting off a supply which we ought to maintain. We want to quicken interest in the proceedings of this House and not to damp it. The fullest opportunity should be given to those whom we are here to serve, of seeing all that is done, of reading all the Debates and of acquainting themselves with the Votes cast by their representatives. While I associate myself with the general criticism of the increasing expenditure, running to tens of thousands of pounds, I deplore this small economy of £1,250 and, as this is the first opportunity we have had of considering the matter, I hope the Committee will express its opinion upon the question, so
that we may know whether this increase in the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT is the desire of hon. Members or not.

Mr. HAYWARD: There is one question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. The increase in the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT and of all Government publications is very great, and it is one which has created a sense of grievance among a great many people who, for business and other purposes, purchase these publications. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will tell us that the Government are charging the public with the increased cost of these publications. If that is to be the reply, I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will define exactly what is included in the increased cost? In me first instance, all these publications have to be prepared for official and for Parliamentary use, all the type has to be put up, and if the public is charged with the extra cost of setting up the type, which has to be paid for in any event, then, I suggest that that is an unfair charge to place upon those who purchase outside copies. All the preliminary costs have to be borne in any event, and I suggest that if the public is going to be asked to pay any extra cost, the only extra cost with which it should be charged is that of drawing off the copies and not that of the original preparation of the copies. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote if he will tell us whether the public is being charged any of the extra cost of the original setting up of the type and the original preparation of the publication.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I should like to support that part of the criticism that has come from this side of the Committee, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). It is a surprising thing that when we should require, as we certainly do require, an educated democracy, when we want the people of the country to follow the Debates in this House, and particularly the detailed discussions of certain Measures, important and otherwise, that take place within its walla, we should put what is now practically a prohibitive tax upon the publication of the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House. I belong to a trade union, which the hon. Gentleman himself will find, if he looks through the records, regularly purchased this OFFICIAL REPORT when it was only 3d. per copy. They
naturally, at the present time, wishing to make all the economies possible in the administration of their work, had to consider whether or not they would continue taking in this Report, and they decided to discontinue its purchase. I think this is stupid economy. I believe it would be to the advantage of the community generally and of the business of this House if every free library in the country were supplied with a free copy of this publication. There may even be trade unions, and it would even do good to some of the commercial classes, who are equally ignorant of ordinary political affairs, if they had upon their tables and in their offices every morning the correct Report of the discussions that take place in this Chamber from day to day. It cannot be good economy to stifle the opportunity of the public to become acquainted with the details of the different Measures and discussions in this great Assembly.
The newspapers, as has been suggested, do make some kind of a report, some of them very meagre, nearly all of them one-sided. It depends upon the point of view that they take. It does not matter whether it is the "Daily Herald," or the "Times," or the "Daily News"—the whole of them just publish scanty reports, and even where they make more voluminous reports there is still the same partiality in the excerpts that they take from the discussions and speeches of the Members of this House. They never give opinions that they think might injure the particular view which they take of a political question, and for that reason I think it is false economy to try by prohibitive charges to prevent the public from becoming acquainted with the actual statements that are made in this House. I am afraid there is another reason than economy for this policy that is being pursued at the moment. Naturally, an ordinary Member who has not to take on responsibilities and who is in a more irresponsible position is delighted to get his speeches reported in his local Press and for his people to know as much about what he has done as is possible. In fact, some Members, even in spite of the cost of the OFFICIAL REPORT, now take good care that their local Press is provided with it every morning that their name happens to be mentioned, and you will find that the ordinary private Member
is naturally anxious to get his views and those of his colleagues stated as extensively as possible, but I am afraid that the moment you get on to the Benches opposite and there is the possibility of your constituents knowing exactly the view and the side you take in public discussions in this House, the moment you hold, as it were, a responsible position and have to hunt in packs instead of on your own, the wish is father to the thought to keep from those whom you represent, as far as you possibly can, the views and the causes and the principles that you happen to be supporting at the moment. I am afraid that this attempt on the part of the Government to prevent the public, especially the poorer section of the public, becoming acquainted with the discussions and the Debates in this House from an impartial point of view is not altogether on economic grounds, but is possibly on grounds of personal and governmental advantage.
I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Bodmin has brought this question forward. I think it would be a great mistake on the part of this House, few Members as there are present during this discussion this evening, if we allowed the Government, just because they have had the Committee presided over by the right hon. Sir Eric Geddes, dealing with economy, practically to prohibit the public from getting a cheap Report of the Debates of this House. I think it would be a grave mistake if there was not somebody at least to put forward the other view. I am certain that, if this matter could be put to the public, not merely to Members of this House, but to the whole of the trade unions of the country and to all the other local and important societies, even party organisations—there are a hundred and one institutions that one could think of—they would agree that it would be good policy, for the purpose of politically educating the populace that has got eventually to decide the Government of the country, not to curtail the expenditure by a few hundred or thousand pounds, as is suggested, by limiting the opportunity of gathering and gaining this information, and it would be a good investment, even, to extend the possibilities of the general public becoming acquainted in detail, to a greater extent than they can
now, with the affairs of the country as they are discussed and dealt with in this House.
This is not a party question. I would not like it to go to a, Division, because I have no wish to vote against the Government on this particular item. This is not a party question, and I am sure the hon. Member for Bodmin, who raised it, did not do it from that standpoint. If one could obtain the opinion of the House generally, hon. Members would be found to agree with the argument he has put forward, that it is our business, apart altogether from the question of expense, to make the Debates of this House as widely known as possible amongst those who eventually will have to decide the general policy of the country. For that reason I ask the representative of the Government who will reply, to understand that, while only one or two hon. Members may venture this opinion to-night, it is certain they are representing an overwhelming proportion of the active political partisans and citizens of the country when they demand that no mere question of the economy of a few hundred pounds should be allowed to put greater obstacles than hitherto in the way of the people becoming informed on public questions.

Mr. WISE: I wish to ask a question with regard to the raw material for the Stationery Office. That raw material is paper. The only reference I see to paper is or Page 213—
Paper for printing and for official correspondence; paper to be bound into account books.
The cost for 1922–23 is £772,000, compared with £1,400,000 in 1921–22. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Department where the paper is purchased. There are many countries abroad where you can purchase paper, and it make a vast difference to the Estimates where this paper is bought.

Sir J. BAIRD: The Committee has been very friendly in its criticisms of this Vote, and I shall endeavour to reply to the questions which were put to me, first of all, by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). He very fairly asked whether certain of the recommendations of the Select Committee which reported in August, 1921, have been carried out. The recommendation contained in
paragraph 3, to the effect that every Department should set up a small Departmental Committee which would periodically revise publications and review expenditure upon stationery, and that there should be an officer of liaison between the Stationery Office and the Departments, has been carried out. Hon. Members will see that the effect has been to reduce in almost every case the amount of expenditure on stationery in the various Departments. Attention was drawn in particular, also by my right hon. Friend, to the large expenditure by the Overseas; Trade Department. A very few moments consideration will convince hon. Members that that Department, of all places, engaged as it is in endeavouring to push British trade, must necessarily require a great deal of printed matter. It is sent abroad with the object of pushing British trade. That is the explanation of the relatively large amount of money spent by that Department in stationery.
With regard to the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend compared the cost of 1919–1920 with that for 1920–1921. During those years there was a considerable increase both in wages and in the cost of paper, but the Estimates this year are down. My right hon. Friend referred to the accounts for those two years, and he noticed the increase, which is attributable to the cause I have stated. The hon. Member for Epsom. (Sir E. Blades) asked about the inquiry which is to be held after three years' experiment of Government printing. It is perfectly true that we have undertaken that such an inquiry should be held, but I suggest that it would be premature to hold it until we have had what we asked for, namely, the experience of three years. Until that period has elapsed it would be unwise and would not be a fair test of the experiment to hold the inquiry. As to the nature of the inquiry, about which the hon. Member also asked, the Treasury are at this moment considering that question, but they have not yet come to a decision. The pledge to hold an inquiry, however, is absolute, and there is no question that it will be held. I suggest to him that an inquiry to consider the result of a three years' experiment cannot fairly be held until you have three years of that experiment to go on.
For that reason it would be wise to allow such a period to elapse before holding the inquiry.
The major part of the criticism was directed against the increased price of our OFFICIAL REPORT. I must say I sympathise with hon. Members who find it more expensive than it was to supply their constituents with an authentic and verbatim report of their speeches. I should like at once to relieve my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) of the suspicion which apparently has grown up in his mind that this action has been taken because hon. and right hon. Members who happen to sit on this side of the House, or upon this bench in particular, are less anxious for their constituents to read what they say than those who have the fortune to occupy the other benches. We all know, however, that this is an entirely ephemeral arrangement, and that other hon. Members will eventually take their turn on these benches. Therefore, that has nothing at all to do with the decision. What has confronted us has been the difficulty of economising. It becomes a stock part of our proceedings that, whenever the Government suggests an economy, not one but several hon. Members are at once down on the Government and vigorously attack it. They say, "You must economise, but you must not economise in that direction." That is all very fine.
I have had only a very short and temporary experience of the office where economy is to be effected, but if you refuse and ignore £5,000 here, £10,000 there, or £1,000 elsewhere, your economy vanishes in a very short time. I agree, however, that it would be far more satisfactory if it were possible to distribute the OFFICIAL REPORT. I hope hon. Members are correct in thinking that there is such a tremendous demand for reading it. I do not venture to argue that at the present time. Speaking seriously, we are in a very difficult position so far as money is concerned. It is seriously contended that if people are really anxious to read the OFFICIAL REPORT they cannot afford to pay something approaching the cost of the publication?

Mr. FOOT: Five shillings a week.

Sir J. BAIRD: The cost of the publication.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: Would it be less if they made shorter speeches?

Mr. NAYLOR: Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that the price charged for the OFFICIAL REPORT represents the cost? Is there not rather some margin of profit so far as the Stationery Office is concerned?

Sir J. BAIRD: The position in regard to that is this. The cost of production has risen greatly, as is understandable. As has been stated in replies to questions in the House of Commons, the Reports of Debates have been sold in the past at considerable loss. The cost of production has risen greatly, and before the price was raised in December last the average loss on each copy of the House of Commons Debates had increased from 3¼d. in 1909 to 7¼d. in 1921; and the loss on each copy of the House of Lords Debate had increased from 1½d. in 1909 to 4¾d. in 1921. Last year the whole field of pricing and distribution of Government publications was carefully reviewed, and it was decided that the price should be raised in order to cover a greater proportion of the cost of production. The price of the Reports of Debates was accordingly raised to Is., which, allowing for the usual trade discounts and overhead charges, reduced the loss per copy to 1¼d. for the House of Commons Debates, and turned the loss on the House of Lords Debates into a gain of 1¼d. per copy. On account of the disproportion between the sales of Commons and Lords Debates, however, there still resulted a small deficit on the two Reports taken together.

Mr. FOOT: Are we to understand that 1,700 copies are distributed gratuitously every day, and that 300 are sold? Do we understand that the 800 which are sold are expected to cover the cost of those gratuitously distributed?

Sir J. BAIRD: Obviously that is so.

Mr. FOOT: Then the members of the public have to pay for the free copy which is supplied to me?

Sir J. BAIRD: It cannot be otherwise.

Mr. FOOT: Then it is scandalous.

Sir J. BAIRD: Of course, there must be a loss on those issued to Members of the House, and what the public pay does not meet the whole cost of production.
I ask the Committee to reflect that this is not the only economy in this Vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles did not draw attention to the decrease all along the line in the matter of printing paper and binding.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I admitted the decrease between this year and last year.

Sir J. BAIRD: But the right hon. Gentleman did not call so much attention to these satisfactory items as I should have expected him to do. The items raised by my right hon. Friend include not only the cost of the Votes and Proceedings and the Journals of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but they also include the cost of paper and binding for the two Houses, which amounts to a considerable sum. Last year the Vote did not cover the cost incurred, and that is why these additional sums have been put down. What the right hon. Gentleman raised in regard to increases is a striking exception in the general list of reductions which are shown under almost every head of this Vote. I trust the Committee will not press this particular Vote to a Division on the ground of the charge that is now being made for the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have tried to explain the reasons which have led to this charge being increased. I admit the inconvenience, but it is no greater than the inconvenience which has been caused in relation to a large number of other matters in which economy has been practised.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have been called out of the Committee, and I have not heard what my hon. Friend has said in reply to these points. I shall, however, sec his reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

Mr. NAYLOR: The Committee is greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the details he has given us in reply to the discussion. I am wondering, however, whether his argument is altogether sound in connection with the printing and the pricing of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I understand his explanation is that in regard to the producing and selling of the OFFICIAL REPORT the public are expected to bear the whole cost of production. That is to say, the public are called upon to pay in the higher price charged them for the privilege enjoyed by hon. Members of having a
presentation copy. That may be quite a pardonable experiment on the part of the Stationery Office, but I am afraid it is not quite sound. It is no more sound than it is fair to expect the public thus to pay for privileges enjoyed by Members of this House. Far be it from me to suggest that Members of this House should be charged for their copies. I believe they are entitled to a free copy, but if the public are to be expected to bear the cost of printing those copies which are presented to Members of the House, why should not the same principle be applied to other publications that are also presented free to this House? Possibly it is so applied. Possibly the high prices we see marked on many valuable Parliamentary Reports issued from time to time are accounted for largely by the fact that the Stationery Office are endeavouring to make the public pay for the copies presented to Members of this House.
Apart from that aspect of the question, may I put a practical point to the hon. Gentleman? I presume he is aware it is one of the peculiarities of the printing and publishing trade that the larger the number of copies sold of a publication the more one is able to give for the money, and the smaller the price charged the larger is the number of copies printed and published. I understand the present price of the OFFICIAL REPORT is one shilling. Supposing the principle of making the outside public pay was so extended that 2s. 6d. was charged, the right hon. Gentleman would soon find that fewer copies would be purchased by the outside public. If 5s. were charged, fewer still would be sold, and if we went to the point in the experiment of charging 10s. per copy, in all probability not a single copy would be sold to the public, and that would mean that the Stationery Office would derive no revenue whatever from the sale of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is one side of the question.
Now let us take the other side. Suppose a charge of 3d. per copy is made. When the initial expenses of publication are once paid for, when the printing machines are running, one can continue to print at a very considerably reduced cost, and can produce at that reduced cost a very much larger number of copies. I am quite certain that if the price were reduced to such a sum as to attract the public to buy, you would get a big demand
for the copies, and it is quite possible you would have to print such a large number of copies as would produce an increase of revenue to the Stationery Office, a sum much in excess of what is now got from the present price of 1s. I commend that suggestion to the notice of the hon. Gentleman. He will there find a means of increasing the revenue of the Stationery Office by the sale of the OFFICIAL REPORT at a price which will enable a very much larger number of copies to be purchased by the public, with the result probably that Members of this House will be able to have two free copies instead of one out of the additional revenue.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I think the Committee learned with some astonishment that the outside public has to pay in the price they are now charged for the OFFICIAL REPORT for the copies handed over to Members of Parliament. I am quite sure the Committee would not expect the public to get printed copies at less than cost price, but it is going to the other extreme to suggest that the whole cost of printing the 2,500 copies daily should be defrayed out of the amount derived from the 800 that are actually sold. I suggest to the Minister there are other economies to be effected in the establishments connected with the Stationery Office, establishments which are being run at much greater cost than in pre-War days, and these economies alone would enable the public to get the copies that they desire at cost price without having to pay for something which they do not receive. I submit, apart from the question of the unfairness of paying for something which they do not receive, that it is in the interest of public life that what goes on in this House should be better known than it is. I am not speaking of the interests of individual Members who send their copies down to their constituents, but I do know there are a large number of organisations in many towns which are glad to get these copies and follow the reports of our proceedings very carefully indeed. It would be a great pity to curtail the interest that is taken in our proceedings. It is far too little as it is, and I think the Government ought rather to encourage a wider interest in all matters in the interests of economy and of good administration. I hope the Minister will reconsider this question of
price, if not now at any rate before next year's Estimates are decided upon. Let him see whether the public cannot have these copies at their net cost without being called upon to pay for our copies.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I should like to say a few words in support of what has fallen from my hon. Friend. I submit that the copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT ought to be sold to the public at as low a charge as possible; indeed, they ought to be sold at cost price. Hon. Members who sit on these benches have not the privilege of a great Press behind them, and we feel that what we say in this House, whatever value may attach to it, should be made known to the public. The public ought to be acquainted with what is going on inside this Chamber, and the only way in which the efforts of some hon. Members can be made known to the public is through the circulation of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is therefore essential that it should be on sale at a reasonable price. As the hon. and learned Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) said just now, the matter has been fully discussed by a Committee set up for the purpose, and that Committee came to a conclusion which the Government has turned down, and now these exorbitant prices are being charged to the general public. Many societies which desire to have the OFFICIAL REPORT cannot afford to pay the price now charged, and we ask that, in fairness to the House, there should be placed at our disposal all the records of the doings of this House in such a form and at such a price that the general public of this country can make themselves acquainted with what is transpiring here. I trust my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Home Department will take this matter back to his office, go into it more fully, and consider whether the cost, which is infinitesimal compared with other great costs of the country, does not also compare favourably with the good that would result. If the Government are right it would be to the advantage to the people to know it, although I acknowledge if they were wrong it would be to their disadvantage. On the other hand, we ought not to be ashamed or afraid of anything we do here, or afraid that the general public should not know it.

Sir J. BAIRD: Perhaps I might answer some of the questions that
have been put to me with regard to this Vote. If hon. Members will look at page 213 of the Estimates, they will see that Parliamentary Debates and Records, which last year cost £40,000, are estimated this year to cost £35.000. On the next page, if they look at the heading, "Appropriations-in-Aid," they will see, under the head of Sales of Parliamentary Debates, that the amount received last year was £2,750, while it was estimated that this year it would be £5,000. Let them note the contrast. The cost is £35,000, and we get a £5,000"Appropriation-in-Aid."Then hon. Members talk about charging less.

Mr. RICHARDSON: If the hon. Gentleman reduce the price, the Department might get more sales.

Sir J. BAIRD: Hon Members, I think, should remember that we are including ourselves, that is to say, the copies we each receive.

Mr. NAYLOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that for that £5,000 paid out the public gets more than a return? [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right!" and "No, no!"]

Sir J. BAIRD: I think that question would cover a wider range than we are entitled to deal with in the present issue, which is the rather narrow issue of the Vote for the Stationery Office. I put it to my hon. Friends opposite, is it worth while going to Division for a matter of this sort? The total number of sales when the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT was 3d. was 1,400. The total sale now that the price is 1s. is 700—that is half. The hon. Gentleman opposite shrugs his shoulders in despair at the fact of only 700 copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT going out. He wants adequate and verbal and textual reports of everything said in this House published. Seriously, I put it to the Committee that that is not a proposition that need go further. It is only a short while ago that there was no such thing as a daily OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the House. It is quite a modern innovation. Yet the public only took advantage of this priceless privilege to the extent of 1,400 when they could get it for 3d. Perhaps the hon. Member opposite thinks we ought to reduce it to three halfpence per copy, or perhaps charge nothing.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Hear, hear;

10.0 p.m.

Sir J. BAIRD: I honestly do not think that even if the hon. Members opposite occupied these Benches that they would be disposed to supply copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT free. We are discussing economy. In this respect it is a very small matter. But economy is a horrible thing—I quite agree. It is, however, a thing we have to attend to. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles make some of his most impassioned and eloquent speeches on the subject of economy. I want to anticipate carrying out some of this economy, and to begin the policy of the Government in this respect. As to the very pertinent and important question put to me by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) as to where we get our paper from, may I say that the ordinary supplies of paper for quantities as at the moment required are obtained by tenders which are received only from paper mills in the United Kingdom? With a few exceptions, the whole of the paper required by the Department is obtained in this manner, and is issued, as demanded, for office use or to the printing and binding contractors. Invitations to tender are issued to English, Scottish, and Irish makers indiscriminately. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Welsh?"]

Sir J. BAIRD: The supplies for use in Scotland being required to be delivered at the Edinburgh branch of the Stationery Office, and those for England and Wales to London or Manchester. I think that answers my hon. Friend.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: I desire— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] My remarks will be more lengthy if I am subjected to interruptions by hon. Members who come into the Committee with their courage higher than it has been during the afternoon. Let me say at once that all these little miserable economies of the Government are highly detrimental to the public. The electors ought to have the opportunity of judging Members of the House and Members of the Government by their works. I remember when I went to Sunday school reading in the Old Book: "By their works ye shall know them." Do the electors get to know exactly what happens in this House? It ought to be
as easy as possible to get the whole truth of what happens here. It is, I admit, very often a difficult matter to get the whole truth from the Government Benches. The OFFICIAL REPORT, at any rate, is a publication which gives the whole truth of what actually happens here and gives it without comment or prejudice. It gives the whole policy of the Government and their lack or prejudice. One would have thought that this Government of all the talents and all the virtues would like it to be known to every person what exactly they are doing.
We are told they are a Government that gets things done. They do get things done—in a very bad way It ought to be as easy as possible to get into the hands of the electors exactly what happens both on the Government side of the House and on this side. Yet we see the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT raised from 3d. to 1s. Why, it is more than the price that beer has been increased! More than the price of any commodity that I know of The Government have a subsidised Press which re-

lates anything there is to their credit, and if there is nothing to their credit then they invent something.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting away from the Vote, and is not quite in order.

Mr. WHITE: I was only showing how important it is, which other speakers have shown without being interrupted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"]—how important it is that every elector should know in the best possible manner what happens in this House. Pensioners, trade unionists, taxpayers generally, should know that exactly, from the only authentic source they can get it, at as cheap a rate as possible, and I sincerely hope we shall go to a Division, and this miserable little economy, which is detrimental to the public of this country, will be shown up in the only way we can show it, that is, in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,779,837, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 143.

Division No. 216]
AYES.
[10.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Grundy, T. W.
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robertson, John


Bromfield, William
Halls, Walter
Royce, William Stapleton


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, W. R, (Wellingborough)


Cape, Thomas
Hayward, Evan
Sutton, John Edward


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Swan, J. E,


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hirst, G. H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hogge, James Myles
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Irving, Dan
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wintringham, Margaret


Finney, Samuel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen C.)


Foot, Isaac
Kenyon, Barnet
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William



Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Dr, D. (Inverness & Ross)
Mr. R. Richardson and Mr. C. White.


Gretton, Colonel John
Myers, Thomas



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bruton, Sir James
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Armitage, Robert
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Elveden, Viscount


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R
Evans, Ernest


Atkey, A. R.
Casey, T. W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falcon, Captain Michael


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Barnston, Major Harry
Clough, Sir Robert
Fell, Sir Arthur


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Birchall, J. Dearman
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Foreman, Sir Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Forrest, Walter


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Gee. Captain Robert


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gibbs. Colonel Georqe Abraham


Briggs, Harold
Ednam, Viscount
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Brown, Major D. C.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hallwood, Augustine
Mason, Robert
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Hamilton, Sir George C.
Matthews, David
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Haslam, Lewis
Middlebrook, Sir William
Stanton, Charles Butt


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hills, Major John Waller
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stewart, Gershom


Hinds, John
Morrison, Hugh
Sturrock, J. Leng


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sugden, W. H.


Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sutherland, Sir William


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Neal, Arthur
Taylor, J.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Parker, James
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Houfton, John Plowright
Perring, William George
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hurd, Percy A.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Waddington, R.


Johnstone, Joseph
Pratt, John William
Wallace, J.


Jones., G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Purchase, H. G.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Kidd, James
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


King. Captain Henry Douglas
Remer, J. R.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Lockor-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Lorden, John William
Rodger, A. K.
Wise, Frederick


Lort-Williams, J.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Loseby. Captain C. E.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Seager, Sir William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Mc Curdy.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James: I.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PENSIONS APPEALS (PRéCIS).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn."— [Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Captain BOWYER: I asked the Minister of Pensions this afternoon a question, No. 61, in the following terms:
Whether he is aware that in the précis prepared for appellants before pension appeal tribunals extracts from original documents are often very inaccurately and carelessly copied, and that often important details are omitted, which not only prejudice the appellants but confuse the Court; and will he inquire into the matter?
Only on Wednesday in last week I happened to be present when the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was functioning, and a document upon which a good deal turned was a death certificate, which I now have in my hand. The cause of death was stated to be as follows:
(1) Tubercle of lungs, with cavity formation, five years.
I turn to the précis, which is supposed to be a certified copy of the death certificate, and I read:
Cause of death: (1) Tubercle of lungs, with cavity formation.
There is no mention at all of five years. The certificate goes on:
(2) Tubercular disease of left tarsus, no p.m., nine months.
I turn to the précis, and the second cause of death is given as
Tuhercular disease of left tarsus,
no mention being made of nine months or of there being no post-mortem. The third cause of death is given in the certificate as
Tubercular disease of larynx, two months,
and in the précis as
Tubercular disease of larynx.
In this case, if it could be established that the tubercular disease was of five years' standing, it was of vital importance to the widow who was appearing in the case. It was not until the case was comparatively near its conclusion that it was pointed out to me that there was this discrepancy between the death certificate and the précis, and, on my pointing it out to the President of the tribunal, he said to me, "I wish that you would bring this matter before Parliament, because again and again who have the same mistake cropping up," and ho there and then gave me two or three specific cases. If I turn for a moment to the answer which was given to me this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Ministry, I think the House will see its very unsatisfactory nature. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in reply to my question:
My right hon. Friend has gone into the matter very carefully, and deprecates most strongly the suggestion of general failure in the preparation of accurate précis, for which he is convinced no foundation exists.
I hope I have given him not only a specific case, but, what is far stronger, a definite request by one of the presidents of the courts that this matter should be investigated and brought to the notice of Parliament. He goes on—
On the contrary, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this practice is carried on with care and accuracy.
It is a serious thing when a document like a précis is prepared—I imagine what is put upon the précis is certified by someone as being a true copy of the doctor's certificate or the death certificate, and in fact the President of the Court drew my attention to the fact that "certified true copy" was in fact put upon the document, and how the Minister either can deprecate that I brought it to this notice or can say the work is carried on with care and accuracy I fail to understand.
The second question to which I want to call attention is not so easy. I called attention in question 62 to the case of Sapper Tilley, who before the War was a fitter employed by the London & North Western Railway Company, and after a very fine War service, like so many other men. found himself unemployed. That went on for a year and nine months and then he is offered a very excellent job at 49s. a week by his old employers at Llandudno. He goes before the medical officer, who prevents him taking up the job by refusing to sign the necessary certificates. He is drawing a disability pension of 12s. a week. My question was put in order to get him a pension on which he could live, in view of the fact that it is because of his disability that he cannot take up this work. I have discussed the case with the Parliamentary Secretary, and he points out that, rightly or wrongly, this country administers these pensions, not assessing the pension because of the man's incapacity to work, but assessing it from the amount of the disability. It is true that I may have asked
the Minister to take action on a wrong foundation. In the last paragraph of his reply, the Minister said:
My right hon. Friend is unable to supplement this man's pension on the ground suggested in the last part of the question.
What I complain of is this: I bring a case which, after all, is full of pathos, to the Minister's attention, and I give him the best part of;?. week's notice, and I want to ask him when he receives notice of a specific case like that, is he going merely to give me an answer like that, without making inquiries, or has he made inquiries and is he satisfied that the disability he is now suffering from has nothing to do with the War service, in which case his answer is excellent and one which I will abide by. But if he has not taken the trouble to make an inquiry, I submit that when details of a case like this have been brought to his notice, they at least constitute a prima facie case for the Minister to make inquiries, as this man cannot work, whether his disability is due to War service and whether or not such inquiry cannot lead to the pension being increased, because he cannot live only on 12s. a week. He will say that the man has the right of appeal. This has been going on for some time, and it may be that the man has the right of appeal; but I still submit that that does not answer my case, because if I bring a case to the Pensions Minister it prima facie calls for his inquiry. His answer was unsatisfactory, because I do not know even yet whether he has inquired into the ease. I should be glad if he would let me know what action he took, and why as to the first case I raised he resents the words in the question, and merely says that the work was being carried out with care and precision.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. and gallant Member has raised two points. The first is the case of Tilley. With regard to that, he appears to complain because we answered the definite question which he put. The question he asked was whether we would cause this pension to be increased on account of the man being out of work. Our answer is, and will always be, that the man's pension must necessarily depend upon the extent of disablement. If on inquiry, which we always make, the
wrong amount of pension is being paid to the man for disablement, as the result of a medical board, the pension will be increased.

Captain BOWYER: Will the hon. Member inquire whether the amount of the disablement of this man is in harmony with the pension that he is receiving?

Major TRYON: Certainly, we will inquire. It is a pity that my hon. Friend did not put that point in his original question, instead of putting a question urging us to take action directly contrary to the decision of Parliament; a decision with which I should have thought he would have been perfectly well aware. He suggests that the pension should be increased on account of unemployment. The proper way, if it is to be inquired into, would be to suggest that it should be increased because of the man's disablement. That is the decision of Parliament, which we are bound to carry out. I am sorry that the hon. Member has delayed the case a little by putting forward a claim on entirely wrong grounds. We will inquire into this case, and if the man ought to have a higher pension on the ground of disablement only, he will get it.
Now we come to a more serious matter, which affects this House and affects the questions put down by the hon. Member, and I would say that just as we have responsibility for the answers which we give, so hon. Members have a great responsibility for the questions which they put down, especially when those questions involve serious charges calculated, as I think, without foundation, to cause widespread dissatisfaction and anxiety amongst ex-service men.

Captain BOWYER: Why do you say, "without foundation"?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member asks me why I say, "without foundation." My reply is, because he put down a question to this effect, that we often make these mistakes, and that we often prejudice the eases of these men before the Tribunal. He used the word "often" twice. The House will, I hope, notice that this hon. and gallant Member thinks that the word "often" can be applied on the one single, uncorroborated example which he has brought to the House now for the
first time. The hon. Member's method is very different from that of the Pensions Ministry We wish to get the best possible decision from the Appeal Tribunal with regard to any cases, so we send to them many days in advance a précis giving all the particulars. The hon. Member has not even now given me particulars to enable me to trace this case, and he has not told the House the name of the man.

Captain BOWYER: I have told the Minister the name of the man.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I have not been informed.

Captain BOWYER: No. I told the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon.

Major TRYON: That is so. The hon. Member told me this afternoon, at five o'clock, when the offices were shut, as he knew quite well. He then named the case. Ho has not given the regimental number. I have inquired from the whole of our index this afternoon in the Ministry, and no letter has come from him on the subject, and we are absolutely unable to trace the case. Yet the hon. Member takes up the time of the House of Commons by bringing forward a case and he does not provide the facts on which the House can come to a judgment. I would remind the House that the last time the hon. and gallant Member took up the time of the House on the Adjournment was in connection with the case of Nokes, and it was by a mere accident that I suggested the right name, and that it was found that the pensioner on whose case he was taking up the time of the House had deserted his wife and had disappeared. Therefore, before he brings a charge which creates doubt throughout the country in the efficiency of the tribunals, he ought not to use the word "often" when he has nothing more than one example to bring before the House.

Captain BOWYER: I am making this complaint at the request of the chairman of one of those tribunals.

Major TRYON: The hon. and gallant Member, not intentionally, has made it impossible for us to give the facts, but I do not believe that any Court can have come to a decision without first ascer-
taining all the facts, and I cannot believe that the president of the tribunal has asked that the case should be brought before the House without our having details of the case. Why does not the hon. and gallant Member pursue this course, which has been followed with so much benefit by every part of the House, of writing to the Minister giving the facts, so that he can be answered, and not bringing the case up in the House at the last minute? I must draw a- contrast between the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member and the conduct of the Ministry, which sends out a précis beforehand to the man. I ask the Committee not to assume that a mistake occurs often because of one uncorroborated and unexplored example. That would not be fair to the tribunal or to us. I have had the great privilege of co-operating on a Committee which sat for several months, with the assistance of Members in every part of this House, of ex-service men, and of distinguished officials of the Ministry, exploring the whole range of pension work. One of the points which we came upon in our inquiry was this very point. We recommended that the pricis should be sent to the man in duplicate giving every detail of the case which we were putting before the Court.

Captain BOWYER: You do not do it.

Major TRYON: We do send out the précis. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that well.

Captain BOWYER: It is not accurate.

Major TRYON: My hon. and gallant Friend will not persuade the House of Commons to condemn anybody in a case where it is impossible to give the facts, especially in view of my hon. Friend's experience in the Nokes' case. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions at once put this into force, and the précis is sent out to the man or the widow or the representative in order that they may know what is to be put before the Court. That is done so that, if something is omitted, it will be cleared up in advance, and that any gaps in our statement may be filled in, in order that the case may be judged on its merits. This afternoon I took an example of a précis. It was that of a case sent to me by my hon. and gallant Friend. I went through that précis.
Hon. Members opposite will know how often they urge that if a man is passed into the Army perfectly sound it should count in his favour. I looked at that précis. The first thing it contained after the Summary of Records were all the points which we could bring out in favour of the man, and the very first thing in the whole range of points in favour of the man was the fact, brought out by the Ministry of Pensions, that the man was fit and sound when he joined the Army. That is but. an example of the way in which the Ministry try to do the duty which we all owe to ex-service men, and it is better than bringing general charges based on an isolated and unexplored example.

Captain LOSEBY: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend ought to be allowed to ride off too easily, in spite of the vigour of his answer. He is accustomed to denounce vigorously anyone outside the Ministry of Pensions who thinks that he has a duty towards the ex-service man. I remember that in my own case he denounced me with even more vigour when I ventured to complain in regard to certain unfortunate soldiers in lunatic asylums. To-night he has chided my hon. and gallant Friend as if my hon. and gallant Friend were a schoolboy. My hon. and gallant Friend deserves the thanks of ex-service men for the question he put down. It was not an offensive question. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether the Minister of Pensions was aware of certain clerical errors, which often occurred. I repeat that identically the same complaint has been made to me.

Major TRYON: When did the hon. And gallant Gentleman send that to the Ministry of Pensions?

Captain LOSEBY: I am not referring to my case at the present moment.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the hon. And gallant Gentleman say that he has ever complained of any ease of this kind? I want to know now it has had notice of cases that have been sent on to me.

Captain LOSEBY: I am referring to this particular complaint made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to certain clerical errors. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry has replied with very great vigour. An ejaculation came,
"Why not write to the Minister?" To that, I reply that this House is the proper place to bring out complaints of this kind and that it is of little value, as I recently have found in regard to certain complaints, to write personally to the Ministry. This House is the proper place to raise such grievances, and I, for one, think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in calling attention to these clerical errors, which have most serious consequences, is doing a public service. The Minister of Pensions and the Parliamentary Secretary sometimes take much too quickly official reports which are given to them. There are many complaints that can be made upon the Floor of the House with great advantage. I rise only to support my hon. and gallant Friend, and to state that I have had identical complaints. If the Parliamentary Secretary would only reply that he would look into such cases and endeavour to find whether there was any ground of complaint, we would have no grievance. I still hope that the Minister will look more closely into this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: I have been in the House a good many years, and I have found that when I wrote to Ministers instead of asking a question in the House, no matter what was the Department concerned, the result was always far better than advertising the matter in this way.

Dr. MURRAY: I understand that the précis, and the detailed documents are handed to the members of the tribunal for them to look at. It is the fault of the members of the tribunal if they do not ascertain how long a man has suffered, as certified, from tuberculosis. That is the fault of the tribunal. The
précis, I have no doubt, is a very important matter, but it is only for a first glance, and they look further into the other documents. The ordinary medical board get a précis, but they do not content themselves with that, which only contains the principal points. They look at the more lengthy and detailed documents which supplement the précis. I hold no brief for the Ministry of Pensions, but a member of a tribunal or board who would be content merely with a précis would not be doing his duty. It would have a very far-reaching effect, if pensions were to be assessed according to the influence of the man's injuries on his value in the labour market. I know men who have been allowed 50 per cent. disability, but who are able to work every day in the week, all the year round. A man who has suffered the loss of an eye gets 50 per cent., but he may be a clerk, and able to do his work all right. According to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer), if the man is able to do his work, he should get nothing. As far as I can see, according to the facts presented to us, and until we get further facts about it, my hon. and gallant Friend has had a bad fall.

Sir FREDERICK YOUNG: The chairman of the board in this instance should have reported the matter which apparently was troubling him, to the Pensions Ministry, and the hon. and gallant Member who has taken up the time of the House to-night would have been well advised to make that retort to the chairman instead of reporting the chairman's statement to the House.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes before Eleven o' Clock.